URGENT - ACTION REQUIRED BY 2 AUGUST 2010

CAMPAIGN UPDATE: 21 June 2010

Removing western extension of congestion charging zone is ‘daftest’ of Mayor’s ‘daft’ transport policies

The Mayor of London (Mayor) has launched the final consultation on his plans to remove the western extension of the congestion charge (WEZ) (Note 1). The final deadline for comments is 2 August 2010. Your views can be submitted by email to CChargeConsultation@tfl.gov.uk or online at:

https://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/roadusers/congestioncharging/consultation/default.aspx

Key elements of the Mayor’s proposals, put forward by Transport for London (TfL), include:

• Removing the WEZ formally from 3 January 2011
• Increasing the daily charge in the Central Congestion Charging Zone (CCCZ) to £10 (£9 with ‘Auto Pay’)
• Residents in the WEZ area losing their 90% discount for travelling in the remaining CCCZ
• Replacing the Alternative Fuel Discount with a Greener Vehicle Discount which would provide a 100% discount to cars emitting 100g/km or less of CO2 and meet the Euro 5 standard

The Campaign for Clean Air in London (CCAL) strongly opposes the Mayor’s proposal to remove the WEZ and reckons it is the ‘daftest’ of the Mayor’s ‘daft’ transport policies. Key reasons include:

1. Harmful emissions would rise by up to 8%: Emissions of the most harmful air pollutants would increase by between 3% and 8% in the WEZ area (which compares with an expected 13% reduction only between 2008 and 2011 across all London in the Mayor’s draft Air Quality Strategy) Note 2;

2. Congestion would increase by up to 21%: Congestion would increase by 15% to 21% within the WEZ area. The consultation document admits congestion would be worse than before the WEZ was introduced in part because local road capacity has reduced since 2007. Vehicles at 5 mph are about twice as polluting as those travelling at 20 mph (e.g. when congestion is lighter);

3. It would take years to regain WEZ benefits: The adverse impacts of removing the WEZ would only be offset ‘over time’. TfL cites mitigating measures that may enter into force from 2012…;

4. 48,000 people would lose their 90% discount: 48,000 people in the WEZ area are currently registered for the residents’ discount and would lose their 90% discount to drive in the CCCZ; and

5. £55 million net income per year: Removing the WEZ would reduce net income for London transport by £55 million. That must impact negatively on other transport projects.

Simon Birkett, Founder of CCAL, said: “Removing the WEZ is the ‘daftest’ of the Mayor’s ‘daft’ transport policies. With huge air quality and congestion problems, London needs to be moving forwards not backwards. The Campaign for Clean Air in London urges the silent majority to respond to the Mayor’s final consultation and oppose the removal of the WEZ.”

Notes:

1. For full consultation details see: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/congestioncharging/15520.aspx

2. For impacts see Table 3.3, page 20: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/corporate/appendix-e-report-on-the-removal-of-the-western-extension-zone.pdf   more »

The purpose of the cross-party Campaign for Clean Air in London (CCAL) is to achieve urgently and sustainably at least World Health Organisation (WHO) recommended standards of air quality throughout London.

Air pollution near many of London's busiest roads averages well over twice the WHO's maximum recommended levels. When the political will existed in the past, air pollution issues were tackled quickly, for example the ozone layer, leaded petrol, acid rain and pea-souper smogs. All that is needed now is for the Prime Minister to make a commitment that the government will comply fully with [health based] air quality laws and for that commitment to be followed by determined action to meet deadlines. If you are worried about air pollution, please email the Ministers responsible for air quality, 'FAO The Rt Hon Caroline Spelman MP' at helpline@defra.gsi.gov.uk and 'The Rt Hon Philip Hammond MP' at philip.hammond@dft.gsi.gov.uk, telling them about your concerns and ask them to press the Prime Minister for such a commitment and such action. It really is that simple.

With the spotlight on the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games (London 2012) after the successes of Beijing, the United Kingdom has a choice: 'Ridicule for breaching air quality laws every year'; or a 'Standing ovation for showing the world how to address sustainability issues'.

CCAL's immediate priority is to see that air quality laws are rigorously enforced in each year leading up to London 2012.

   more »

CAMPAIGN UPDATE: 29 June 2010

Mayor Johnson publishes health study with first official breakdown by ward across Greater London of his estimate of 4,267 premature deaths a year due partly to long-term exposure to dangerous airborne particles

‘Clean Air in London’ estimate of up to 8,000 premature deaths also confirmed

Mayor Johnson has published his health study into the impact of poor air quality on Londoners. See:

http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Health_Study_%20Report.pdf

Quotes

Simon Birkett, Founder of the Campaign for Clean Air in London (CCAL), said:

“Mayor Johnson is to be congratulated for publishing (even belatedly) his health study with a breakdown for every ward across Greater London of his estimate of 4,267 premature deaths a year due partly to long-term exposure to dangerous airborne particles. This report paints a shocking picture of the Olympic city.

“Recognising the importance of this new information, the Mayor has today delayed by three weeks the closing date for the consultation on his draft Air Quality Strategy (draft AQS) until 13 August.

“For the first time every person, ward councillor and politician across London can see average levels of fine airborne particles in their ward and the premature deaths linked to it. The report also publishes a range of 756 to 7,965 with the ‘best’ estimate of 4,267 premature deaths. It confirms CCAL’s estimate of up to 8,000 premature deaths in London due to long-term exposure to dangerous airborne particles.

“This report makes clear the worst air quality and greatest legal breaches occur in inner London and near our busiest roads. For the first time though it shows that air pollution is a problem throughout London. It may therefore come as a surprise to some in outer London who thought air pollution was not their problem. I urge people to see what the health study shows for their local area.

“This report will have major ramifications for years to come. First, we need a major campaign to build public understanding of the health impact of poor air quality so people know how to protect themselves and reduce air pollution for everyone. Second, we need a much more ambitious air quality strategy from the Mayor (with urgent bold measures including much cleaner taxis, buses and one or more additional inner low emission zones (like the 40 Germany had by the end of last year)). Third the new Government must publish similar premature death estimates for the UK as a whole (in contrast to the failing or ‘cover-up’ by the previous Government, which steadfastly refused to do so), as demanded by Parliament’s Environmental Audit Committee in March this year, and publish redacted information hiding details around legal action from the European Commission about UK breaches of air quality laws every year since 2005.

“Finally, Transport for London (TfL) which yesterday extended the consultation on the postponement of Phase 3 of the low emission zone (LEZ3) (due to ‘recent technical problems with the public consultation inbox’) by six days to 4 July must extend that consultation by a further three weeks or more to allow Londoners time to see this health study and object to the delay of this important measure intended to protect people across London.

“CCAL will continue pressing the Mayor and TfL to release other information relating to actual and possible breaches of air quality laws that should also have been published with each of the ongoing three consultations (LEZ3, draft AQS and removal of the western extension of the congestion charging zone).

“Dr Brian Miller, the author of the health study, must also be thanked and congratulated for this groundbreaking work.”

ENDS

Note:

The health impact of short-term and long-term exposure to dangerous airborne particles is believed to overlap to some extent although long-term exposure causes many more premature deaths than short-term exposure. Premature deaths can also be caused by short-term exposure to sulphur dioxide and/or ozone.   more »

CAMPAIGN LETTER: 24 June 2010

‘Clean Air in London’ rejects Mayor’s (sole) proposal i.e. delay Phase 3 of LEZ to January 2012

'Bad Air Day (B.A.D.) 2010 for particles' as PM10 daily limit value for a whole year is breached in London in less than six months

Mayor says fines are ‘potentially £300m per year for each pollutant’ but still refuses to publish his health study explaining methodology and breaking down 4,300 premature deaths by borough/ward

Mayor must take more urgent, more radical action now to improve air quality throughout London

Mayor should subsidise ‘one-off’ retrofit and scrappage costs for LEZ3 operators from £55m net annual income from western extension of congestion charge (WEZ)

Boris Johnson
Mayor of London
Greater London Authority
City Hall
The Queen’s Walk
More London
London SE1 2AA

LEZ Variation Order consultation
Transport for London
Windsor House
42-50 Victoria Street
London SW1H 0TL

By email: mayor@london.gov.uk and lezlondon@tfl.gov.uk

24 June 2010


Dear Mayor Johnson and Transport for London

I am writing on behalf of the cross-party Campaign for Clean Air in London (CCAL) to respond to the consultation on the Mayor and Transport for London’s (TfL’s) proposed deferral of Phase 3 of the London low emission zone (LEZ3) which closes on 28 June 2010 (the Consultation). Thank you for the opportunity to do so. The full consultation document can be seen at:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/archive/15508.aspx

Details of CCAL’s mission and a list of its supporters can be found at www.cleanairinlondon.org.

CCAL supports strongly (except if in conflict with this letter in which case this letter prevails) all the comments made by the Campaign for Better Transport, ClientEarth, Environmental Protection UK and Friends of the Earth in their responses to this consultation.

The PM10 daily limit value for a whole year has been breached in London in less than six months. See:

http://www.londonair.org.uk/london/asp/publicstats.asp?statyear=2010&mapview=PM10b®ion=0&site=CT8&postcode=&la_id=&objective=All

This breach is very significant, inter alia, since:

• it throws further doubt on the UK’s reapplication for a time extension until 2011 to comply with the PM10 daily limit value (i.e. to avoid the prospect of fines) not least because there is no ‘sea breeze’ causing these problems (as the Government may try to argue);
• with no more than 35 breaches allowed in the whole of 2011 (even if the UK obtains a time extension for PM10), it shows that the Government and Mayor need to do much more, much faster to improve air quality in London;
• will we see the Mayor’s chaotic traffic measures to tackle (many) local ‘hotspots’ or will we see a ‘well thought-through’ ‘Clean Air Zone’ in inner London; and
• it reminds us how ‘daft’ Mayor Johnson was to postpone LEZ3 last year.

The air pollution problem in London is much worse than most of us have realised.

Summary

The Mayor announced his decision to suspend Phase 3 of the London low emission zone (LEZ3) on 3 February 2009. As early as 18 March 2009, the London Assembly passed a motion calling on the Mayor to reverse his decision. Subsequently ‘most stakeholders’ supported the retention of LEZ3 in their responses to the consultation on the Mayor’s draft Transport Strategy.

The current consultation on the postponement of LEZ3 is farcical. For a start, it suggests implementing LEZ3 in January 2012 is a great new idea from the Mayor when the reality is he seems to have suspended a long-planned and crucial public health measure on a ‘whim’. Worse, the Consultation omits crucial information and lists three options, two of which the Mayor tells us are not real:

1. implement LEZ3 on 4 October 2010 as originally planned;
2. postpone LEZ3 to 3 January 2012; or
3. scrap LEZ3 altogether.

The Consultation then goes on to say: the first of those options is ‘no longer feasible’; the second is being consulted upon; and the third is not being consulted upon i.e. the Mayor has only one proposal which is to delay LEZ3 until 3 January 2012. CCAL does not comment further in this letter on the so-called ‘Proposals’ 1 or 3 other than to say the information about them is as inadequate as it is about Proposal 2.

The continuing failure to provide adequate information means that CCAL and other consultees are unable to give intelligent consideration or an informed response to the option(s) being consulted on. For example, it is difficult to think of information which could be more relevant to the public consultation than that which shows the health impact of poor air quality in each part of London, and the extent to which the postponement of LEZ3, the removal of the WEZ and the Mayor’s other air quality proposals will result in EU air quality laws continuing to be breached.

If this information is not provided in good time, and at least 21 days prior to a final closing date for this consultation, we reserve the right to challenge this and other related consultations, and any decision taken following those consultations, in particular on the basis that such consultation has been inadequate and has failed to meet accepted public law standards.

TfL therefore should extend the deadline for comments on the current LEZ3 consultation by three or more weeks.

CCAL rejects (yet again) the Mayor’s proposal to postpone LEZ3 until 3 January 2012. To mitigate the financial impact on operators, CCAL urges the Mayor most strongly to use part or all the £55m net annual income from the western extension of the congestion charging zone (WEZ) to subsidise retrofit and scrappage costs for the most vulnerable operators. Amongst other things this would create a valuable precedent for linking directly road user charging with public health benefits and ‘green’ jobs.

Background

As you know, details of Phase 3 of the proposal for a London low emission zone (LEZ3) were originally set out by Mayor Livingstone on 4 June 2007. See:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/archive/5229.aspx

That announcement followed a consultation which included details of the area, tonnes and the number of people expected to be protected by the implementation of LEZ3. Annex A on page 45 showed (for Variant 1) that over 15% of those worst affected by poor air quality were due to be protected by the implementation of LEZ3 on 4 October 2010. See:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/roadusers/lez/lez-supplementary-information-november2006.pdf

Phases 1 and 2 of the LEZ entered into force on 4 February and 7 July 2008 respectively.

Mayor Johnson announced his decision to suspend LEZ3 to an unspecified date on 3 February 2009 (famously the day when London drew to a standstill due to snow). See:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/archive/11096.aspx

CCAL has said repeatedly it is irresponsible and wrong of the Mayor to postpone LEZ3 most notably on 3 February 2009 and in responses to consultations including:

 
17 November 2009 – Consultation with London Assembly and Functional Bodies

“CCAL opposes strongly the delay of Phase 3 of the LEZ and urges the Mayor to introduce by January 2011 one or more inner LEZs along the lines of the Berlin scheme (i.e. to coincide with the possible removal or the WEZ or otherwise).”

11 January 2010 – Consultation on the draft Transport Strategy

“CCAL objects to the delay of Phase 3 of the LEZ.”

CCAL continues now to oppose the delay of LEZ3 to 3 January 2012. Measures such as this are needed now not in future years. The Mayor must take more urgent, more radical action now to improve air quality throughout London and ensure full compliance with air quality laws.

Substantial information shortfall in three air quality-related consultations

You will appreciate that with consultations ongoing about the postponement of LEZ3 and the removal of the WEZ it is important to have a clear understanding of the context of those consultations. In this respect the Integrated Impact Assessment for the draft AQS is a vital document and we note it has still not been published. In the absence of that document, and in the absence of the requisite information in the LEZ3 consultation papers themselves, CCAL is prevented from responding fully to the LEZ3 consultation (or on those relating to the draft AQS or the WEZ), including in relation to whether the proposed deferral of LEZ3 to January 2012 is compatible with the UK’s obligation under air quality laws.

Please would you publish the following information as a matter of urgency and in a way that will readily bring it to the attention of the public:

a) the health study with estimates of premature deaths due to dangerous airborne particles, broken down by borough and ward across London. CCAL has previously requested this information under FOIA / EIR and was told on 12 May 2010 that “the expected release date is soon”. CCAL has also requested a review of the decision to refuse the release of this information. It is imperative that the information is published now as part of each of the three consultations, and in good time for consultees to consider it fully;

b) modelling or estimates of the likelihood of the PM10 daily limit value being breached in 2011 in London if LEZ3 were to be postponed. In particular:

i. the modelling undertaken of the impact of the removal of the LEZ3 (including of the highest mean concentrations of annual mean PM10 within ‘concentration contours’ shown in Figure 6-2 on page 46 of the ‘Variation Order 1 Integrated Impact Assessment (Final Report May 2010)’);
ii. any modelling of the impact of mitigation measures (e.g. those referred to in ‘Box 9’ on page 63 of the draft AQS);
iii. any assumptions underpinning the above modelling;
iv. the TfL commissioned study of measures to address concentrations at ‘priority locations’ based on international best practice (as referred to in ‘Box 9’ on page 63 of the draft AQS).

c) modelling or estimates of the likelihood of the NO2 annual mean and hourly limit values being breached in 2010, 2011 and 2012 in London (including in the area shown in Figure 6-2 on page 46 of the ‘Variation Order 1 Integrated Impact Assessment (Final Report May 2010)’), and the likelihood of maintaining annual mean concentrations of NO2 below 60 µg/m3 in each of those years, if LEZ3 were to be postponed. In particular:

i. the modelling undertaken of the impact of postponing LEZ3;
ii. any modelling of the impact of mitigation measures (e.g. of the type for PM10 referred to in ‘Box 9’ on page 63 of the draft Air Quality Strategy);
iii. any assumptions underpinning the above modelling;
iv. any related work done for TfL by ERG/King’s College London, TRL or others, equivalent to that undertaken for PM10.

d) details of any measures that were considered for inclusion in the draft AQS, but ultimately rejected, and the reasons for such rejection. In particular, the modelling undertaken of the likely impact of these measures on air quality (referred to in Section 1.6 of the draft AQS).

As you will be aware, fair consultation must take place at a time when proposals are still at a formative stage; sufficient reasons must be given for proposals to enable consultees to give those proposals intelligent consideration and to provide an intelligent response; adequate time and opportunity should be given for a response; and the product of the consultation must be conscientiously taken into account by the authority when reaching its decision: R v Brent LBC ex p Gunning (1985) 84 LGR 168, approved in R v North and East Devon Health Authority ex p Coughlan [2001] 1 QB 213.

The continuing failure to provide the information above means that CCAL and other consultees are unable to give intelligent consideration or an informed response to the various options being consulted on. It is difficult to think of information which could be more relevant to the public consultation on the postponement of LEZ3 than that which shows the health impact of poor air quality in each part of London, and the extent to which the postponement of LEZ3, the removal of the WEZ and the Mayor’s other air quality proposals will result in air quality laws continuing to be breached.

If this information is not provided in good time, and at least 21 days prior to the end of each consultation, we reserve the right to challenge this and other current consultations, and any decision taken following those consultations, in particular on the basis that such consultation has been inadequate and has failed to meet accepted public law standards.

TfL therefore should extend the deadline for comments on the current LEZ3 consultation by three or more weeks.

The failure to publish important information with the current air quality-related consultations points to serious failings by London government and a lack of fairness.

Impacts

The impacts of delaying LEZ3 from 4 October 2010 are serious for public health and the UK’s ability to comply with air quality laws in London. By way of illustration only paragraph 6.16 on page 40 of the ‘Revised Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Report on the Assessment of the Proposal to Defer Low Emission Zone Phase 3 from 2010 to 2012’ (IIA for LEZ3) states:

“The effect of implementing Phase 3 in January 2012 rather than October 2010 is to defer and somewhat reduce the benefit in terms of the emissions of air quality pollutants (by around 10% for PM10 and around 20% for NOx).”

The costs of implementing LEZ3 are described in paragraph 5.6.35 on page 35 of the IIA LEZ3 states:

“2010 [one-off] compliance costs for operators were expected to be in the region of £115-130m. In 2012 this is expected to fall to between £85m-£100m, resulting in an approximate reduction in compliance costs of around £30m.”

It is irresponsible of the Mayor to postpone LEZ3 as he is doing. To implement the scheme urgently and mitigate the financial impact on vulnerable operators, CCAL urges the Mayor most strongly to use part or all the £55m net annual income from the WEZ to subsidise retrofit and scrappage costs for the most vulnerable operators. Amongst other things this would creates a valuable precedent for linking directly road user charging with public health benefits and ‘green’ jobs.

Other comments or observations on LEZ3 consultation proposal

CCAL has no further comments here on the implementation of LEZ3 on 4 October 2010 or ‘never’ since the Consultation dismisses these as ‘no longer feasible’ or not for consultation. CCAL has the following further comments or observations on the proposed postponement of LEZ3 until 3 January 2012:

1. Boroughs say plans are inadequate

According to a response to Mayor’s Questions dated 19 May 2010, six boroughs have expressed concern since 1 November 2009 about the UK complying with EU limit values for PM10 or NO2. These include: City of London; Hillingdon; Camden; Enfield; Redbridge; and the City of Westminster. See:

http://mqt.london.gov.uk/mqt/public/question.do?id=31135

Which borough has expressed what concern about which limit value and when? Will the Mayor publish the information? Why are these important concerns not mentioned in the three current consultations i.e. the postponement of LEZ3, the draft AQS and the removal of the WEZ?


2. ‘Most stakeholders’ support the [urgent] implementation of LEZ3

Paragraph 2.6.5 of the IIA LEZ3 states:

“During the consultation on the MTS [Mayor’s Transport Strategy], a number of responses were received that related to LEZ Phase 3 which give an insight into the various stakeholder concerns. While most stakeholders supported the continued implementation of LEZ Phase 3 [in October 2010] and associated environmental benefits, a number of stakeholders (especially those representing business interests) noted the impacts of the recession and the potential economic impact of LEZ Phase 3 on small businesses.”

As early as 18 March 2009, the London Assembly passed the following motion:

“This Assembly expresses its concern at the Mayor's stated intention not to proceed with implementation of stage three of the Low Emission Zone in 2010. The Assembly calls on the Mayor to proceed with implementation of stage three in 2010 as originally planned, so as to improve London's air quality and the health of Londoners, and help meet European air quality standards.”

http://www.london.gov.uk/media/press_releases_london_assembly/assembly-calls-mayor-reinstate-lez-plans

Why has the Mayor not listened to stakeholders and the London Assembly?

3. Defra’s plan has ‘no margin for error’ and (wrongly) includes WEZ

CCAL notes the extraordinary admission in paragraphs 5.6.25 and 5.6.26 on page 33 of the IIA for LEZ3:

“Defra has undertaken modelling of London’s air quality in 2011 to inform its submission to the European Commission for an extension to the PM10 EU limit value deadline from 2005 to 2011. Their modelling only included current measures (e.g. the two initial phases of the Low Emission Zone affecting HGVs, buses and coaches; some hybrid buses etc) as well as natural turnover and national measures. Defra’s modelling showed that even without taking further action (i.e. not implementing LEZ Phase 3) London should be compliant with EU limit values by 2011. However, there was no margin of safety [CCAL emphasis]. This is a significant risk to compliance with EU limit values given the variations in air quality year by year due to changes in weather conditions and the contribution from external sources.

“Consequently, not introducing LEZ Phase 3 at all would reduce the certainty of the EU limit values for PM10 being met in 2011.”

For further details see:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/roadusers/lez/LEZ/LEZ-VO-Impact-Assessment-May-2010.pdf

You will be aware that Article 22 of the Directive requires that a Member State ‘shall demonstrate how conformity of will be achieved with the limit values before the new deadline’. Commission guidance similarly requires that predictions of how PM10 levels are likely to fall must be ‘realistic and reliable’.

It is clear, even from the IIA for LEZ3, that hot weather and/or transboundary air pollution would/are scupper/ing the UK’s chance of achieving full compliance with the PM10 daily limit value throughout London – which is a key requirement of a time extension being granted.

Furthermore, with the TEN including the WEZ, when the Mayor has said he will remove it, it seems even more ridiculous to propose postponing LEZ3 to January 2012. Surely this evidence will add to the pressure on the Commission to reject the UK’s renewed application for a time extension for PM10.

Will the Mayor accept finally, after two years of backward steps by him on air quality, that a time extension for PM10 until 2011 cannot be justified? What else does the Mayor know about the likelihood of infraction action that could cost up to £300m per year per pollutant?

4. Mayor must publish health study with local breakdowns

The original impact assessment for LEZ3 was prepared when Londoners thought there were 1,031 premature deaths in 2005 due to PM10. On 28 March 2010, the Mayor estimated there are some 4,300 premature deaths a year in London due partly to long-term exposure to dangerous airborne particles (with a cost of some £2bn a year). With the health impact of poor air quality realised to be much worse than before it is irresponsible of the Mayor to be postponing key mitigation measures not implementing them.

What can be more important than knowing who is affected by poor air quality so people: are warned about the health risks; can express their concerns; and can propose and request measures that are targeted appropriately? How have these new numbers changed the economic case for LEZ3? When will the Mayor’s health study be published?

5. Failure to publish key reports showing the (successful) impact of the existing LEZ

CCAL submitted Freedom of Information/Environmental Information Regulation requests relating to LEZs on 12 April 2010. TfL responded by releasing several documents to CCAL on 30 May and 7 June subject to copyright and other restrictions i.e. well after the current consultation period was launched for LEZ3 on 17 May. These include:

i. ‘An analysis of air quality data to determine the impact of the London LEZ – 2004 to 2008’ by AEA dated January 2010 (33 pages);
ii. ‘Emissions related charging: Impact on the vehicle market (Final report for TfL, August 2007)’ by Experian (57 pages);
iii. ‘(Category 3 Air Quality Monitoring) Analysis of Air Quality Date – LEZ Year 1 (2008/09) Results by King’s College London and the University of Leeds dated May 2009 (119 pages); and
iv. ‘National Travel Survey – Analysis of travel trends for London’ dated June 2008’ (19 pages).

Amongst other things, these studies show the LEZ is working and provide further evidence the Mayor was wrong to postpone LEZ3. Indeed, the preliminary assessment made by the first of those reports says “The report notes potentially significant trends in levels of black carbon and PM2.5 [i.e. fine particulate matter] across the period of scheme implementation”.

These key studies do not seem yet to be available to the general public to inform their response to the LEZ3 and other air quality-related consultations.
Why was it necessary for CCAL to seek this information under the FOIA / EIR? Why were these studies not published before the LEZ3 consultation was launched on 17 May 2010? Does the Mayor accept these omissions point to serious failings by London government and a lack of fairness? When will these studies be published?

6. Mayor seems to think of ‘inequality’ in terms of ‘access to minibuses’ rather than lives cut short

Paragraph 5.6.41 on page 36 of the IIA for LEZ3 states:

“In addition, the Equalities Impact Assessment undertaken to guide the development of the scheme, identified that young people, older people and disabled people were seen to be more reliant on minibuses for transport. Charities, schools and similar bodies are likely to be smaller organisations, less able to absorb additional costs to meet the new LEZ standards. This situation would have been exacerbated by the recent recession which has affected charitable giving and the availability of grants from funding organisations.”

How much weight, if any, has been put on the inequality arising from non-white British being exposed, on average, to 17% more of the deadly PM10 than white-British and black-British being exposed, on average, to 30% more of the deadly PM10 than white-British?

Does the Mayor think of inequality in terms of ‘access to minibuses’ (though important) rather than lives cut short by air pollution?

7. Mayor must abide by public health laws

Paragraph 6.1.7 on page 41 of the IIA for LEZ3 says:

“The overall assessment of the proposal [to postpone LEZ3 to 3 January 2012] is finely balanced but in light of the factors set out above it is assessed as positive. This reflects that the negative impacts of the proposal are assessed as minor in magnitude – as impacting upon the environment and human health – and the positive impacts as moderate in magnitude – as impacting upon socio-economic factors.”

This seems to be a subjective, even whimsical, judgement which fails to take account of the need to comply with air quality laws to protect public health.

Does the Mayor think public health laws are optional – that they do not need to be complied with in full? Let’s remember, dying prematurely is even worse than losing your job.

8. Impact assessment focuses on NOx not NO2

Paragraph 5.6.24 on page 23 of the IIA for LEZ3 states in respect of compliance with the NO2 limit values:

“Assuming an extension is given, the date for achieving EU limit values for NO2 will be 2015. Whilst LEZ Phase 3 is targeted at PM10 emissions, where newer vehicles replace older ones NOx benefits are also provided by the scheme which complement other proposals set out by the Mayor. These proposals include a taxi strategy, a new NOx standard for HGVs, buses and coaches as part of LEZ from 2015, to address NOx emissions. Together with LEZ Phase 3 these play an important role in improving air quality in London, including reducing concentrations of NO2 helping towards meeting relevant EU limit values.”

This is wholly inadequate.

How can we comment intelligently on a proposal that fails to: tell us about its direct impact on NO2 limit values; tell us what will happen if a time extension is not obtained; and does not address how annual mean concentrations of NO2 will be kept below 60 micrograms per cubic metre (g/m3) (which is a legal requirement) if a time extension is obtained?

9. Consultation documents fail to provide detail on PM10 population or area exposure or risk of limit values being breached

Variant 1 in Annex A of a report titled ‘Proposed London Low Emission Zone Scheme Description and Supplementary Information’ dated November 2006 showed that over 15% of those worst affected by poor air quality (PM10 and NO2) were expected to be protected by the implementation of LEZ3 on 4 October 2010. See:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/roadusers/lez/lez-supplementary-information-november2006.pdf

Similar information is omitted from the current consultation along with rafts of other crucial information.

How can we comment intelligently on a proposal that fails to: tell us about its direct impact on PM10 limit values; tell us what will happen if a time extension is not obtained; and does not address whether annual mean concentrations of PM10 will be breached anywhere in London having been attained?

10. Mayor champions ‘white van man’ but not retrofit and other ‘green’ jobs

Paragraph 5.6.40 on page 38 of the IIA for LEZ3 says:

“Relative to the option of introducing Phase 3 in 2010, the [2012] proposal is predicted to have a positive economic impact during the deferral period on those people who use large vans and minibuses, many of the latter being owned and operated by community groups such as schools and charities which contribute to London’s rich educational, cultural, heritage and sporting life. Some will have been especially adapted (e.g. to make them wheelchair accessible) at additional cost and may not be easy to retrofit due to their age.”

What is the total cost to ‘green’ industries and jobs of the Mayor’s decision to decide to suspend a measure which he admits is important for compliance with air quality laws? Has the Mayor taken into account all relevant costs in his latest proposal(s)?

11. £300m fines per year for each pollutant:

CCAL is pleased there is an official recognition at last that EU fines are ‘potentially in the region of £300 million per year for each pollutant’. See paragraph 5.48 in the ‘London Low Emission Zone Variation Order: Proposed deferral of the inclusion of larger vans and minibuses in the LEZ from 2010 to 2012’:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/roadusers/lez/LEZ/LEZ-VO-Supplementary-Information-May-2010.pdf

The Mayor is wrong to assume the UK will obtain a time extension until 2011 for PM10 and 2015 for NO2 to comply with limit values. Further, even if a time extension were to be obtained for NO2, it is unclear from any of the Mayor’s current air quality related-consultations (i.e. LEZ3, draft AQS or WEZ) whether the annual mean concentrations would be kept below 60 g/m3 from 1 January 2010 which would be a requirement of such a time extension. CCAL considers the UK does not meet the requirements for a time extension for either PM10 or NO2 in London.

Under what precise legal power or duty does the Mayor believe he can choose to prioritise ‘economic benefits’ over the need to comply fully with public health laws?

These are significant omissions individually but, collectively, they suggest serious failings by London government and a lack of fairness.

Inner London low emission zone

CCAL has urged the Mayor of London and TfL on numerous occasions, including in very detailed submissions, to introduce one or more additional inner low emission zones (or ‘Clean Air Zones’) in London. This or these would be in addition to LEZ3 and would ban the most polluting diesel vehicles from the most polluted parts of London.

You are aware there were some 40 such inner LEZs in Germany by the end of 2009 with scores more across Europe. See:

http://www.lowemissionzones.eu/

CCAL continues to advocate strongly the implementation of one or more of these additional inner LEZs in London. The implementation earlier or simultaneously of a stronger, Berlin-style, inner LEZ might allow the Mayor to slow the tightening of the outer LEZ (all other things being equal). CCAL is not repeating details here, since both the Mayor and TfL have long had such a proposal from CCAL, but would be pleased to meet the Mayor or senior TfL officials to discuss it.

Close

Please contact me if you have any questions or would like more information on any of the points raised in this letter.

With best wishes.

Yours sincerely


Simon Birkett
Founder
Campaign for Clean Air in London   more »

CAMPAIGN UPDATE: 3 June 2010


European Commission singles out United Kingdom with final written warning over levels of dangerous airborne particles (PM10) in London and Gibraltar

‘Clean Air in London’ warmly welcomes the European Commission’s action and says it must act as a wake-up call to the new Government which has already watered-down bold Liberal Democrat manifesto commitments on air quality

EU air quality laws for PM10, in legislation since 1999, have been breached in London every year since they entered into force in January 2005. Similar laws for nitrogen dioxide (NO2), a toxic gas, were breached in London within weeks of entering into force in January 2010. No sign of compliance before 2012 Olympics (or thereafter)


European Commission announcement

The European Commission is pursuing legal action against the UK for failing to comply with EU air quality standards for dangerous airborne particles (PM10). These particles, emitted mainly by industry, traffic and domestic heating, may have negative effects on health leading to asthma, cardiovascular problems, lung cancer and premature death. A second and final written warning has been sent to the UK for still exceeding the limit values for PM10 in London and Gibraltar. See:

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/687&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

Final warning for UK over PM10 levels

Environment Commissioner Janez Potočnik said: “Air pollution is bad for our health. It reduces human life expectancy by more than eight months on average and by more than two years in the most polluted cities and regions. Member States must comply with EU air quality standards quickly and reduce air pollutant emissions.”

The Commission started this legal action because a number of zones in the UK were exceeding the PM10 limit values in 2005, 2006 and 2007. The Commission is now sending a final warning to the UK for breaching EU air quality standards. According to the latest data (provided in September 2009), two areas, namely London and Gibraltar, exceeded the daily limit value for PM10 in 2008. Gibraltar also exceeded the annual mean limit value for PM10 in 2008.

This is the latest in a series of legal actions taken by the Commission against Member States following the entry into force in June 2008 of the new EU Air Quality Directive. The Directive allows Member States to request, under certain conditions and for specific parts of the country, limited extra time to meet the PM10 standards which have been in force since 2005.

First warning letters were sent at the beginning of 2009 to Member States that had not by then submitted notifications for time extensions or had not notified the Commission about all air quality zones exceeding the limit values for PM10. As a result, most Member States involved submitted notifications for a time extension.

The UK submitted an exemption request for eight zones including London. However, the Commission did not consider the exemption justified, as seven out of the eight zones already complied with the limit values. For London, the Commission considered that the UK had not shown that compliance with the daily PM10 limit value would be achieved by the time the exemption period expired in 2011. The UK has recently sent a further exemption request for London, which is still under assessment. However, given that zones still exceed the PM10 limit values, the Commission is sending the UK a final warning (Case number: 2008/2205). If the UK fails to take the necessary measures to comply with the legislation, the Commission could refer the case to the European Court of Justice.

Quotes

Simon Birkett, Founder of the Campaign for Clean Air in London, said:

“The Campaign for Clean Air in London (CCAL) warmly welcomes the European Commission’s much needed escalation of legal action against the UK for continuing to breach air quality laws that have been in legislation since 1999 and required to be met since January 2005.

“It is only surprising that the Commission has patiently waited more than 16 months to move from the first to the second stage of legal action. In future, it must escalate action much faster since UK government’s seem to understand nothing else.

“The dying act of the last Government, on 3 May 2010, was to reapply for a time extension until 2011 to comply with air quality laws for dangerous airborne particles when it must have known its new case is based on little more than the assertion “we expect to comply by 2011” (with the new Government, the Mayor and the European Commission set to take the blame when the UK breaches this standard in London in late 2011 as it surely will). Ridiculously, for example, the Government’s plan (lodged on 3 May) assumed that: Phase 3 of the low emission zone (LEZ3) will be postponed until 2012 (i.e. pre-judging a consultation on a planned measure); and the western extension of the congestion charge zone (WEZ) will remain (i.e. not pre-judging a consultation on the removal of a successful existing measure on which the Mayor has (rashly) ‘staked his colours’). CCAL will be urging the Commission to reject the UK’s reapplication.

“Will the new Government continue to claim litigation privilege to stop the disclosure of redacted sections of ministerial briefing papers after rulings by the Information Commissioner’s Office and more recently the Information Tribunal? Even the Government admits that those redacted sections, if disclosed, could undermine its ability to defend itself against the Commission’s legal action which has been escalated today. What is the Government hiding?

“The Mayor of London is no better: his draft Air Quality Strategy is riddled with wishful thinking; and he continues deliberately to take backward steps on air quality, particularly in respect of transport, when rapid leaps forward are required. In that respect, for example, the removal of the WEZ would be a ‘double whammy’ because air quality will worsen and Transport for London will lose over £55m of net income. The best thing the Mayor has done on air quality is to tell us the scale of the problem - 4,300 premature deaths per year in London due, at least in part, to long-term exposure to dangerous airborne particles. And he still refuses to say how that number is calculated or release ward by ward and borough by borough breakdowns as CCAL has requested under Freedom of Information rules. Why has the Mayor quietly extended the deadline for responses to his draft Air Quality Strategy from 20 June to 23 July 2010?

“The Commission’s action is a welcome warning shot across the bows of the incoming coalition Government that committed weakly, in its coalition document, to “work towards full compliance with European Air Quality standards” i.e. without acknowledging any responsibility for complying with these laws and with no deadline specified. At least the Liberal Democrat manifesto had said “We will aim to fully meet European air quality targets by 2012”. Where are those bold words now?

“Let’s not forget either that the UK breached air quality standards for nitrogen dioxide (NO2), a toxic gas, for a whole year in London within weeks of the 1999 standard entering into legal force in January 2010.

“We need: the Government to respond immediately by publishing national and regional estimates for the number of premature deaths due to long-term exposure to dangerous airborne particles (as the House of Commons cross-party Environmental Audit Committee demanded in March this year); and the Government and the Mayor to introduce urgently meaningful measures that will tackle a problem causing more early deaths than alcoholism, obesity or passive smoking. Action now would have the added benefit of kick-starting green industries.

“We have only UK political leaders to blame for: today’s final written warning from the European Commission; and the wasteful prospect, in due course after Court action, of unlimited lump sum and daily fines that could total £300 million.”   more »

CAMPAIGN UPDATE: 11 May 2010


‘Clean Air in London’ (CCAL) wins at Information Tribunal after Government’s counsel admits Tribunal’s ruling means “it does not have much of an appeal left”

Government plans to seek permission for a further appeal to stop release of redacted sections of Ministerial briefing papers

CCAL believes redacted sections are likely to highlight: weaknesses in Government’s case against legal action by European Commission for breaching air quality laws; and difficulties Government has had agreeing a co-ordinated approach with Mayor Johnson

Government has today re-applied for a time extension until June 2011 to comply with the EU daily limit value for dangerous airborne particles (PM10)


Earlier today, the First Tier Information Tribunal began hearing an appeal by the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs against an Order by the Information Commissioner's Office on 2 November 2009 for it to release all information requested by the Campaign for Clean Air in London (CCAL) on 22 January 2009. CCAL’s original request was for:

“...a copy of any minutes, papers, correspondence or other material relating directly to any meeting (including sent subsequent to it) that takes places between Lord Hunt and Mayor Johnson. I believe the meeting may include discussions about the western extension of the congestion charging zone and air quality”.

CCAL’s barristers asked the Information Tribunal to reject the Government’s attempt to raise new legal arguments late in the appeal process. The Government admitted there were no special reasons why the Tribunal should consider the arguments and that the only reason it had not made them earlier was an error. The Tribunal ruled within minutes that the Government was not allowed to run the new arguments.

As a result, the Government’s barrister admitted, in open court, that "it does not have much of an appeal left” and said it intends to seek permission to appeal the Tribunal’s ruling.

The Tribunal has said it intends to publish written reasons for its decision before the end of this week after which the Government is expected to lodge formally its application for permission to appeal. If the appeal is granted, it would be heard by the Upper Tier of the Information Tribunal.

Quotes:

Simon Birkett, Founder of CCAL, said:

“It is amazing the Government has twice now refused to release this information to the Campaign for Clean Air in London (CCAL) and twice now appealed decisions against it: first by the Information Commissioner’s Office and now by the Information Tribunal.

“Again and again, the Government is stalling and making excuses. After obtaining three tranches of the requested information, the remaining information CCAL is seeking is likely to highlight: weaknesses in the Government’s case against legal action by the European Commission for breaching air quality laws; and the difficulties the Government has had in agreeing a co-ordinated approach with the Mayor of London so that credible information and plans could be submitted to the European Commission. Worryingly, it is clear from the Ministerial briefing material already released to CCAL, Ministers and officials gave little or no thought to the scale of the health impacts of poor air quality in London when they were preparing to meet Mayor Johnson in January 2009.

“With the: Mayor saying, yesterday, he plans to launch final consultations in May about the removal of the western extension of the congestion charging zone (WEZ) and the postponement of the third phase of the London low emission zone (LEZ3); and Government reapplying today for a time extension to comply with the European Union (EU) daily limit value for dangerous airborne particles (PM10), there has never been greater public interest in seeing the information the Government is hiding.

“The Government is clearly pursuing delay for delay’s sake so that:

• LEZ3 will be postponed;
• the WEZ will be removed;
• its time extension application will be granted; and
• legal action over PM10 will be avoided

before this information is released.

“How many times does the Government have to be told it is in the wrong before it discloses key information relating to harmful emissions and the protection of public health in London?

“It is ironic the Government has re-applied today for a time extension to comply with the EU daily limit value for PM10 in London on the same day it has lost again its fight to keep secret evidence which may show the European Commission was misinformed or mislead by the Government in its original application to the Commission. Bizarrely, the reapplication assumes LEZ3 will be postponed until 2012 but not that the WEZ will be removed.

“Finally, CCAL wishes to thank again its legal team comprising leading barristers, Gerry Facenna and Laura Elizabeth John, and Phil Michaels, Head of Legal at Friends of the Earth. Without this tremendous legal team, CCAL would never have been able to win this case.”

Notes:

1. Full details of CCAL’s battle to obtain information around Ministerial meeting with Mayor Johnson on air quality, including Ministerial briefing papers, can be seen at:

http://www.cleanairinlondon.org/blog/_archives/2010/4/28/4516369.html

2. The Government’s reapplication for a time extension to comply with EU daily limit value for PM10 in London is attached.

   more »

CAMPAIGN UPDATE: 28 April 2010


‘Clean Air in London’ is joining Information Commissioner’s Office at Information Tribunal on 11 and 12 May to fight Government appeal against Order to release details including Ministerial briefings relating to its January 2009 meeting with Mayor Johnson

‘Clean Air in London’s’ excellent legal team includes barristers, Gerry Facenna and Laura Elizabeth John, and Friends of the Earth’s Rights and Justice Centre

Government has released information, in three stages, but key elements still ‘redacted’

Evidence so far suggests Government: had failed to communicate, even internally, the health impact of poor air quality in 2009 (or later); and may have mislead the European Commission in its time extension notification for PM10 and/or during infraction action


‘Clean Air in London’ has spent 15 months fighting to uncover Ministerial briefings

The Campaign for Clean Air in London (CCAL) submitted a request to the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act and/or Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) on 22 January 2009. CCAL requested:

“...a copy of any minutes, papers, correspondence or other material relating directly to any meeting (including sent subsequent to it) that takes places between Lord Hunt and Mayor Johnson. I believe the meeting may include discussions about the western extension of the congestion charging zone and air quality”.

The Government is under a legal duty to respond to such requests within 20 working days. On 1 April 2009, the Government rejected CCAL’s request in full. On 1 May 2009, CCAL called for a review of the decision and this was rejected, again not within the statutory 20 working days but on 15 September 2009.

CCAL lodged a complaint with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) on 3 October 2009 asking the ICO to consider the case urgently because of the public health issues involved and the fact the UK was: applying to the European Commission for a time extension to comply with European Union (EU) limit values for dangerous airborne particles (PM10); and already subject to infraction action. The ICO responded, with almost unprecedented urgency, no doubt because of the seriousness of the issues involved, and ordered Defra to release all the information requested by CCAL. Defra rejected this request and lodged an appeal against the ICO’s decision on 1 December 2009.

On 24 December 2009, Government lawyers sent (by first class post) a first tranche of information to CCAL. In response to a separate and later FOI/EIR request, the Greater London Authority (GLA) released promptly, on 11 March 2010, a copy of the letter from Lord Hunt to Mayor Johnson dated 5 February 2009 (which was one of the documents CCAL had been seeking) and the Mayor’s response to Lord Hunt dated 16 March 2009. Later the same day, the Government chose to release suddenly to CCAL the same Lord Hunt letter.

Defra released a third tranche of information on 8 April 2010, a few days after receiving CCAL’s 31 page Witness Statement which attached 37 annexes (totalling over 350 pages of evidence), which included Ministerial briefing papers and emails between senior Government officials. Key sections are blacked out (or ‘redacted’) in different documents. All these documents are being published with this Campaign Update for the first time.

A particular focus of the information released so far relates to the Government’s approach to: the Mayor’s proposed removal of the western extension of the congestion charging zone (WEZ); the Mayor’s suspension of Phase 3 of the London low emission zone (LEZ3); the process to seek time extensions to comply with EU limit values for PM10 and nitrogen dioxide (NO2); and a ‘defensive’ briefing for Ministers on the Government’s proposed expansion of Heathrow.

CCAL is keen to understand also whether the Government has acted responsibly in: seeking a time extension to comply with EU limit values for PM10 (and/or NO2); and defending the UK from infraction proceedings, launched by the European Commission on 29 January 2009, in relation to breaches since 2005 of EU limit values for PM10.

The Information Tribunal is due to hear Defra’s appeal in London on 11 and 12 May 2010. The Information Commissioner’s Office is the ‘Respondent’ and Simon Birkett, Founder of CCAL, has been joined as an ‘Additional Party’ at his request.

CCAL is advised on a pro bono basis by barristers, Gerry Facenna and Laura Elizabeth John, and Phil Michaels, Head of Legal at Friends of the Earth’s Rights and Justice Centre.

Quotes

Simon Birkett, Founder of the Campaign for Clean Air in London, said:

“The Campaign for Clean Air in London (CCAL) lodged its request for information on 22 January 2009 in a bid to uncover crucial information relating to Ministerial briefings about air quality in London ahead of a key ‘political’ meeting between Lord Hunt and Mayor Johnson.

“CCAL would never have been able to challenge the Government’s persistent stalling and refusal, over some 15 months, to release information prepared for these air quality meetings without decisive advice from Gerry and Laura and then the backing of Phil Michaels and his outstanding legal team at Friends of the Earth’s Rights and Justice Centre.

“CCAL is keen to understand, not least, whether the UK Government has acted responsibly in: seeking a time extension to comply with EU limit values for PM10 (and/or NO2); and defending the UK from infraction proceedings, launched by the European Commission on 29 January 2009, in relation to breaches since 2005 of EU limit values for PM10.

“It seems astonishing, just months after CCAL disclosed details of one of the biggest public health failings or ‘cover-ups’ by a Government in modern history and the European Commission rejected the UK’s application for an extension of time for PM10 due to ‘significant uncertainty’, that the Government is still fighting the release of information which relates directly to the same area of public health and full compliance with air quality laws.

“CCAL is determined to find out about Ministers’ understanding of and approach to: the impact on public health of poor air quality in London; the Government’s obligations under European Union (EU) laws to ensure ambient air quality; and the need for the Secretary of State to issue directions to the Mayor of London under section 363 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 if the Mayor continues to take decisions that jeopardise the UK’s ability to achieve EU limit values in London (e.g. by removing the western extension of the congestion charging zone (WEZ) and/or delaying Phase 3 of the London low emission zone (LEZ3)).

“The third tranche of information just released by the Government (within days of receiving CCAL’s Witness Statement together with a barrage of supporting evidence), which still includes many ‘blacked out’ (or redacted) sections, provides ample evidence – in CCAL’s view – to suggest the Government: had not grasped adequately the scale or urgency of the public health threat posed by poor air quality by 2009 (or later); and may have mislead the European Commission when it submitted its time extension notification seeking a delay until 11 June 2011 to comply with EU limit values for dangerous airborne particles (PM10) and/or in defending the UK from infraction proceedings.

“A picture is emerging of a Government which: has failed to communicate the dangers of poor air quality internally within Government, never mind to the general public; is more concerned with delaying compliance with air quality laws than achieving it; and seems to want to avoid a row with the Mayor even when he is taking one or more backwards steps on key air quality measures and threatens to jeopardise the UK’s legal case for a time extension on PM10. Is there any ‘political will’ in Government to achieve full compliance with air quality laws?

“It is time the Government accepted the overwhelming public interest in favour of it releasing immediately the remaining information. It is long past time we were told the truth.”   more »

CAMPAIGN UPDATE: 28 March 2010

Mayor Johnson says 4,300 premature deaths a year in London are linked to long-term exposure to dangerous airborne particles at an annual cost of up to £2 billion

Mayor of London has today joined Parliament’s cross-party Environmental Audit Committee in calling on the Government to commit the resources necessary to reduce the enormous burden air pollution places on organisations such as the NHS and to implement national measures
where they are most effective

Mayor Johnson has made improving air quality in London a General Election issue by ‘throwing the gauntlet down’ and sending the Government a wish list of 14 measures it needs to take

Mayor Johnson publishes his draft Air Quality Strategy for public consultation

Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, has today published his draft Air Quality Strategy, ‘Clearing the Air’, for public consultation. See media release (with a link to the full document):

http://www.london.gov.uk/media/press_releases_mayoral/plans-announced-tackle-pollution-londons-dirtiest-roads

The consultation period will run until 20 June 2010.

Quotes

Simon Birkett, Founder of the Campaign for Clean Air in London, said:

“Mayor Johnson’s estimate of some 4,300 premature deaths a year in London due to long-term exposure to dangerous airborne particles is far higher than unofficial estimates produced late last year by the Campaign for Clean Air in London Note. This is truly shocking news when compared to 2,600 deaths nationally due to road traffic accidents.

“Unlike the Government though, which has failed to publish or ‘covered-up’ a similar estimate for London and the UK as a whole, at least the Mayor is warning people about the full health impact of poor air quality. The Government’s omission represents one of the biggest public health failings or ‘cover-ups’ in modern history.

“Boris has made action on air quality a General Election issue by ‘throwing the gauntlet down’ to the Government by joining today with Parliament’s cross-party Environmental Audit Committee in calling on the Government to play its part finally in improving London’s awful air quality.

“However, Mayor Johnson's draft Air Quality Strategy, which includes 14 measures he wants the Government to take, represents more of a ‘wish list’ itself than a strategy to address one of the biggest public health crises in London. How many premature deaths will actually be avoided each year if the Mayor’s committed measures are implemented?

"The Mayor has published a ‘wish list’ not a strategy. He clearly:

• wishes he could delay compliance with laws for dangerous airborne particles (PM10) until 2011 instead of 2010 as required following the European Commission’s rejection of the Government’s application for a time extension last December

• wishes the Government would fund and implement 14 of the most important measures needed to improve air quality in London

• wishes the UK didn’t need to comply with hourly legal standards for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) which were breached in London for a whole year less than a month after entering into force on 1 January 2010

• wishes annual mean NO2 didn’t need to stay below 60 micrograms per cubic metre from January 2010 even if the UK gets a time extension until January 2015

• wishes removing the western extension of the congestion charging zone (WEZ) wouldn’t result in new breaches of the daily legal standard for PM10 in Brompton Road

• wishes the Government will fail to spot he is planning to sacrifice tens of millions of pounds of income (and making air quality worse) by removing the WEZ at the same time he is asking the Government for money and putting up bus fares

• wishes the weather was always mild and wet and London didn’t have hot summers like 2003 which is estimated to have resulted, in London, in an additional 46 to 212 premature deaths due to ozone and 85 from dangerous airborne particles

• wishes his ideas for action by 2020 would be enough to protect Londoners now and avoid embarrassment at the London 2012 Olympics

“The first ever official estimate in the UK for the full health impact of poor air quality must mark the start of much more vigorous efforts by the Mayor and the Government, working together, to protect our health.

ENDS

Note:

The Mayor says his estimate of premature deaths includes those due to all particles (i.e. including non-human sources) whereas the Campaign for Clean Air in London’s estimate of 3,460 in 2005 included only those due to anthropogenic sources (i.e. human sources). The Government recently estimated the non-anthropogenic level at just 1.418 micrograms per cubic metre in 2008.   more »

CAMPAIGN UPDATE: 22 March 2010


Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) must be congratulated on its hard-hitting inquiry and report into air quality: ‘Early deaths from air pollution shame UK’

‘Clean Air in London’ (CCAL) has unearthed one of the biggest public health failings, or ‘cover-ups’, by a government in modern history – no estimate for the number of premature deaths due to long-term exposure to dangerous airborne particles.

EAC inquiry has confirmed ‘Clean Air in London’ estimate of 3,460 premature deaths (or up to 7,900) due to long-term exposure to dangerous airborne particles in London in 2005 and around 35,000 (or up to 50,000) nationally. EAC tells Defra it must raise the profile of the issue by publicising the latest data on premature deaths more widely

‘Clean Air in London’ reiterates its call for the government to apologise for its failure to warn the public adequately about the dangers of poor air quality

The cross-party Campaign for Clean Air in London (CCAL) congratulates Parliament’s powerful Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) on its hard-hitting inquiry and report into whether the UK has an effective strategy to comply with its air quality obligations. It is clear the UK does not have such a strategy.

The EAC’s report (Volume I) is available at:

http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/environmental_audit_committee/inqairquality.cfm

Volume II (containing oral and written evidence) will be available on the Committee’s website from 11.00am approximately on Tuesday 23 March.

Quotes

Simon Birkett, Founder of the Campaign for Clean Air in London (CCAL), said:

“The Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) must be congratulated on its hard hitting inquiry and report into air quality: ‘Early deaths from air pollution shame UK’. The EAC’s investigation has shown just how badly the UK has failed to develop an effective strategy to comply with its air quality obligations. The EAC’s inquiry has confirmed CCAL’s worst fears including its estimates for the number of premature deaths in London.

“The government should respond immediately by: giving Mayor Johnson full responsibility for complying in 2010 with limit values for dangerous airborne particles (PM10) in London; publishing its plans for complying with legal standards for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx); and communicating clearly estimates for the number of premature deaths due to poor air quality.

“Why has it taken an inquiry by one of Parliament’s most powerful Select Committees (supported by an excellent report by the National Audit Office) to get a government Minister to refer, for the very first time, to the possibility of 35,000 premature deaths in the UK in a year due to air pollution? Why has the government never published an estimate for the number of premature deaths due to long-term exposure to dangerous airborne particles?

“The highest government number we have heard before was ‘up to 24,000 deaths per year (nine times more than traffic fatalities)’ – which was repeated in a Ministerial speech on 17 September 2009. A Freedom of Information request by CCAL confirmed the ‘up to 24,000’ number used in the speech last year was based on 1998 estimates for the health impact of ‘short-term’ exposure to air pollution (which comprised 8,100 premature deaths due to dangerous airborne particles; 3,500 due to sulphur dioxide; and between 700 and 12,500 due to ozone). It is clear the government knew as early as 2001 that long-term exposure to dangerous airborne particles was responsible for many times more premature deaths than short-term exposure.

“Under intense questioning as part of this EAC inquiry, Professor Frank Kelly – one of the UK’s most respected health experts – confirmed the likelihood of around 35,000 premature deaths in the UK in 2005 due to long-term exposure to dangerous airborne particles alone. Professor Kelly mentioned also a European estimate of some 50,000 for such deaths for the UK. Even allowing for some overlap between the number of premature deaths due to short-term and long-term exposure, and perhaps between different types of pollutants, it is clear the EAC inquiry has confirmed officially – for the first time – the full scale of the UK’s air quality problem. The EAC says people are dying up to nine years early in ‘hotspots’.

“We should remember too that, even if the UK achieved clean air tomorrow, people would still continue to die prematurely due to their earlier exposure to dangerous airborne particles. Only over time, as a population generation lived its whole life free from air pollution, would people reach their full potential life expectancy.

“It is very odd the government has never published an estimate for the number of premature deaths due to long-term exposure to dangerous airborne particles in the UK. The government’s omission is particularly odd given the European Commission, the European Environment Agency, the US’s Environmental Protection Agency and the World Health Organisation have all published such numbers in recent years as part of their communications to warn the public about the dangers of air pollution.

“The Campaign for Clean Air in London is therefore repeating its call for the government to apologise for not warning the public, as it should have done, about the full extent of the health risks of poor air quality after its failure to publish, or its ‘covering-up’ of, an estimate for the number of premature deaths due to long-term exposure to dangerous airborne particles. Evidence heard by the EAC has confirmed the estimates provided by CCAL to the EAC last December including those of 3,460 and up to 7,900 premature deaths due to dangerous airborne particles in London in 2005 alone.

“CCAL wishes to record its thanks particularly to: Tim Yeo MP (Chair, Conservative); Martin Horwood MP and Jo Swinson MP (Liberal Democrat); Mark Lazarowicz MP and Dr Desmond Turner MP (Labour); and Gordon Clarke, Nick Davies and Edward White for their outstanding contributions to this inquiry.”   more »

CAMPAIGN UPDATE: 4 February 2010

Government says ‘there has not been a cover-up’ on air quality premature deaths

Government fails to: acknowledge importance of premature deaths as a key metric in communicating health impact of dangerous airborne particles to the public; or justify its slowness in updating crucial air quality statistics

‘Clean Air in London’ urges again Environmental Audit Committee to support call for government apology after failing to update, or covering-up of, over 250,000 premature deaths due to dangerous airborne articles over 10 years

‘Clean Air in London’ urges Mayor of London not to make the same mistakes

The government has written to the Campaign for Clean Air in London (CCAL), just days before the Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) meets next Tuesday to take evidence as part of its inquiry into air quality, to say ‘there has not been a cover-up’ over air quality premature deaths. CCAL has published the government’s letter on its website with this Campaign Update.

The EAC has announced today it will take evidence from King’s College London and others.

Government makes its case for not updating premature death estimates since 1998

Simon Birkett, Founder of CCAL, said:

“We must welcome the government setting out, at last, its reasons for not updating estimates of premature deaths due to dangerous airborne particles since 1998. Justification is needed since the government has known since 2001 the health effects of long-term exposure are ‘considerably greater’ than the effects of short-term exposure that were quantified in 1998.

“In CCAL’s view, two points are particularly indefensible. First, the government’s persistent refusal to acknowledge the importance of premature deaths (aka ‘attributable’ or ‘brought forward’ deaths) as a key metric in communicating the health impact of dangerous airborne particles to the public. Its stance contrasts sharply, for example, with that of the European Environment Agency, the European Commission, the United States’ Environment Protection Agency and the World Health Organisation (WHO). Second, the government’s slowness in updating crucial air quality statistics.

“The government’s complacency is indefensible when 3,460 and up to 7,900 people are estimated by CCAL to have died prematurely due to dangerous airborne particles in London in 2005 alone. They may have died 9.8 years early on average.

“CCAL therefore calls again on the government to apologise for not warning the public, as it should have done, about the full extent of the health risks of poor air quality after its failure to update, or its ‘covering-up’ of, over 250,000 premature deaths due to dangerous airborne particles over 10 years. CCAL urges the EAC and others to support such a call.”

Further details of CCAL’s investigation are shown in the Appendix that follows.    more »

CAMPAIGN LETTER: 14 December 2009

Submission to Environmental Audit Committee's (EAC) inquiry into air quality - Published with permission from the EAC

Clerk of the Committee
Environmental Audit Committee
House of Commons
7 Millbank
London
SW1P 3JA

Dear Member of the Environmental Audit Committee

The AIR QUALITY INQUIRY

MEMORANDUM by the CAMPAIGN FOR CLEAN AIR IN LONDON

One of the worst public health failings or ‘cover-ups’ in modern history with over 250,000 premature deaths due to poor air quality in the UK undisclosed over 10 years*

Introduction

1. I am writing on behalf of the cross-party Campaign for Clean Air in London (CCAL) to submit a memorandum to the Environment Audit Committee’s (EAC’s) inquiry into Air Quality which opened on 21 October and closes on 14 December 2009. Thank you for the opportunity for do so. The EAC’s announcement of the inquiry can be seen at:

http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/environmental_audit_committee/eacpn211009.cfm

2. The purpose of CCAL is to achieve urgently and sustainably at least World Health Organisation (WHO) recommended standards of air quality throughout London. CCAL operates under the auspices of The Knightsbridge Association, an amenity society. Further details of CCAL’s mission and its supporters can be found at www.cleanairinlondon.org.

3. CCAL supports strongly all the comments made by ClientEarth and Environmental Protection UK in their responses to this inquiry (except if in conflict with this letter in which case this letter prevails).

4. Please acknowledge receipt of this letter to the email address provided separately.

* CCAL calculation for the UK using COMEAP 2009’s 6% coefficient and methodology described in Appendix 3. In other words, the government seems to have decided not to disclose since 1998 an updated estimate of the number of premature deaths due to exposure to dangerous airborne particles (PM2.5 or PM10). There is a separate question as to whether the 250,000 figure is a substantial underestimate.

Summary

5. No effective strategy: In CCAL’s carefully considered view, the UK does not have an effective strategy to comply fully with air quality laws and shows no sign of developing one. The EAC’s inquiry is therefore timely.

6. At separate public meetings in November and December 2009, highly respected members of COMEAP (the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollution) were referring still to 8,100 premature deaths per year due to PM10 in urban areas of Great Britain (Table 1.1 on page 3 of the COMEAP 1998 report). CCAL can find no other official number disclosed by the government for total premature deaths due to PM2.5 or PM10 in the UK since 1998. The COMEAP 1998 report was titled ‘Quantification of the Effects of Air Pollution on Health in the United Kingdom’ and recommended a coefficient of 0.75% per 10 micrograms per cubic metre (ug/m3) PM10 (e.g. 1.07% PM2.5) See also:

http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/comeap/statementsreports/airpol7.htm

7. CCAL estimates, using COMEAP’s 2009 recommendation of a 6% coefficient per 10 ug/m3 PM2.5, there were around 35,000 premature deaths due to dangerous airborne particles (PM2.5) (which would be the same for PM10 based on current government advice) in the UK in 2005 (and perhaps 51,537). See Appendix 2 and paragraph 25 below.

8. Failings or ‘cover-up’ of the real health impact: Assuming CCAL is correct, pending a better estimate from the government, it is not unreasonable to assume there have been some 350,000 premature deaths due to PM2.5 and/or PM10 over the last 10 years compared to the 81,000 premature deaths one might have assumed from COMEAP or government published figures. In CCAL’s view, this ‘gap’ of over 250,000 may represent one of the biggest public health failings or ‘cover-ups’ in modern history. Action: We need clarity now on the actual and Precautionary Principle figures.

9. CCAL is concerned separately, based on a close reading of the Peer Review of the COMEAP 2009 report, that COMEAP may be substantially underestimating the health impact at 6% per 10 ug/m3 PM2.5. Higher coefficients of 12%, 15%, 16% and/or 17% are possible.

10. Modeling is not ‘fit for purpose’: The government’s modeling of air quality concentrations over the last decade has not been ‘fit for purpose’. It has pointed and continues to point to expected sharp reductions in concentrations of dangerous air pollutants. Each year, the government registers apparent ‘surprise’ when actual results show the opposite picture. What is more alarming is that the UK has justified less monitoring of air pollution than other countries on the back of its commitment to modeling. This is not acceptable and again endangers public health and the successful planning and delivery of an effective strategy to improve air quality. Action: Future strategy should assume no change in concentrations under business as usual until modeling is proven to be reliable.

11. No coherent delivery chain: The almost total disjunction between the government’s responsibility, on behalf of the Member State, and the ‘work towards compliance’ duty on local authorities has been a recipe for failure. In general, local authorities (and the Mayor of London) seem to have little appetite to take action they are not required to take. Action: The Environment Agency should be given national responsibility, authority, accountability and adequate resources to ensure full compliance everywhere with air quality laws (perhaps as in the USA; proposed at Heathrow; and/or in relation now to flooding). Alternatively or additionally, a very clear chain of delivery needs to be defined for each layer of government and others. See also Appendix 5.

12. Next steps: Many steps need to be taken to improve air quality in the UK and comply fully with air quality laws. These include: scrapping COMEAP and replacing it with a body more like the Health Effects Institute in the USA; giving the Mayor of London sole responsibility for complying immediately with EU limit values for PM10; using everything including the ‘kitchen sink’ to ensure full compliance with EU limit values for nitrogen dioxide (NO2); and launching a major campaign to build public understanding of the health risks of poor air quality and the actions needed to minimise them.

13. The opportunity: Protecting public health and complying with air quality laws also offers many co-benefits. The UK could show at the 2012 Olympics how air pollution and wider sustainability issues can be tackled successfully in major cities. Ridicule is in prospect if air quality is not tackled.

Health and environmental risks caused by poor air quality

Warning: CCAL has a lay understanding of epidemiology but has made every reasonable effort to ensure the accuracy of its statements on health risks.

Health risks - Dangerous airborne particles (see also Appendix 1)

14. Dangerous airborne particles are usually categorised by size: fine particles called PM2.5 (less than 2.5 microns in diameter (um)); coarse particles called PM2.5-10; and PM10 (less than 10 um in diameter). PM2.5 arises largely from combustion and PM2.5-10 arises largely from mechanical processes e.g. tyre and brake wear. A recent EEA/ETC report estimated that within Europe about 70% of PM10 concentrations comprise PM2.5. i.e. 0.75% per 10 ug/m3 PM10 = 1.07% per 10 ug/m3 of PM2.5.

15. Note: COMEAP’s advice is that there is little risk in the coarse fraction so its health impacts are often not quantified i.e. all the risk for PM10 is contained in PM2.5. Some scientists disagree and consider that toxicity appears across the PM fraction. CCAL has adopted COMEAP’s stance for simplicity i.e. the number of premature deaths due to PM2.5 and PM10 is the same.

16. CCAL’s understanding of the timeline of knowledge about the health risks of PM2.5 and PM10 is set out in Appendix 1 and more briefly below.

17. In 1998, in its report titled “Quantification of the Effects of Air Pollution on Health in the United Kingdom”, COMEAP proposed in paragraph 9.18 on page 57 a hazard rate (or risk coefficient) for short term exposures of 0.75% per 10 ug/m3 PM10 as a 24 hour mean for all ages. It felt there was insufficient data to allow acceptably accurate quantification of [long term] health effects.

18. In March 2001, in its report titled “Statement and Report on Long-Term Effects of Particles on Mortality”, COMEAP proposed a hazard rate (or risk coefficient) for long term exposures of 0.1% per 1 ug/m3 drop in annual mean PM2.5 for those aged 30 years and over (i.e. 1.0% per 10 ug/m3).

19. In June 2009, in its report titled “Long-Term Exposure to Air Pollution: Effect on Mortality”, COMEAP proposed in paragraph xiii on page 3 a hazard rate (or risk coefficient) for long term exposures of 6.0% per 10 ug/m3 increase in annual mean PM2.5 for those aged 30 years and over.

20. CCAL urges the EAC to consider the Peer Review comments submitted on COMEAP’s draft report (see Appendix 1 of COMEAP 2009) which include serious criticisms of COMEAP’s choice of coefficients and of the elicitation process used by COMEAP to choose the recommended coefficient.

See: http://www.dh.gov.uk/ab/COMEAP/DH_108151

21. CCAL urges the EAC to consider Defra’s report on the impact of delay in complying with air quality laws on race. It is titled ‘UK notification to the European Commission to extend the compliance deadline for meeting PM10 limit values in ambient air to 2011, Race Equality Impact Assessment (England)’. See Appendix 6.

22. CCAL is not aware of any update on the total societal costs of poor air quality since Table 2.14 on page 90 of the Defra 2007 Air Quality Strategy (AQS):

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/air/airquality/publications/stratreview-analysis/chap-2-icgb.pdf

While 6% remains the COMEAP 2009 recommendation, the range for 2005 societal costs is £8.582 bn to £20.165 bn. The 7 to 8 months average national impact in life expectancy appeared in the Foreword of the same 2007 AQS.

23. Applying COMEAP 2009 recommendations using the Precautionary Principle suggests a coefficient of 15%. Even however at a lower 12%, the societal costs were £16.238 bn to £38.115 bn in 2005 (per Table 2.14 in the 2007 AQS).

Government or COMEAP statements re premature deaths due to PM2.5 in the UK in 2005

24. At separate public meetings in November and December 2009, highly respected members of COMEAP were referring still to a 1998 COMEAP figure of 8,100 premature deaths per year due to PM10 in urban areas of Great Britain (Table 1.1 on page 3 of the COMEAP 1998 report). CCAL can find no other official number disclosed by the government for total premature deaths due to PM2.5 or PM10 in the UK since 1998. The COMEAP 1998 report was titled ‘Quantification of the Effects of Air Pollution on Health in the United Kingdom’. See also:

http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/comeap/statementsreports/airpol7.htm

The public events were the Environmental Protection UK autumn conference on 12 November 2009 and the Royal Society of Chemistry’s annual conference on 9 December 2009.

CCAL’s lay calculation of premature deaths due to PM2.5 in the UK in 2005

25. The European Topic Centre on Air and Climate Change estimated in its paper titled ‘Health Impacts and Air Pollution – An exploration of factors influencing estimates of air pollution impact upon the health of European citizens’ in December 2008 estimated that there were 51,537 premature deaths attributable to exposure to ambient PM10 concentrations in the UK in 2005 (Table 1.1 on page 8).

See: http://air-climate.eionet.europa.eu/reports/ETCACC_TP_2008_13_HealthImpact_AirPoll

26. CCAL has calculated the number of premature deaths due to PM2.5 in the UK in 2005 using three separate methods (see Appendix 2).

27. CCAL estimates that between 33,000 to 40,000 people died prematurely due to PM2.5 (or PM10) in the UK in 2005 assuming the COMEAP 2009 6% coefficient. The number may be as high as 51,537 (see paragraph 25 above). Note that levels of PM2.5 have been broadly static over the last 10 years.

28. Assuming CCAL is correct, pending a better estimate from the government, it is not unreasonable to assume there have been some 350,000 premature deaths due to PM2.5 and/or PM10 over the last 10 years compared to the 81,000 premature deaths one might have assumed from COMEAP or government published figures. In CCAL’s view, this ‘gap’ of over 250,000 may represent one of the biggest public health failings or ‘cover-ups’ in modern history.

29. CCAL is concerned separately, based on a close reading of the Peer Review of the COMEAP 2009 report, that COMEAP may be substantially underestimating the health impact at 6% per 10 ug/m3 PM2.5. Higher coefficients of 12%, 15%, 16% and/or 17% are possible.

CCAL’s lay calculation of premature deaths due to PM2.5 in London boroughs in 2005

30. CCAL has similarly calculated the number of premature deaths due to PM2.5 in London in 2005 for each London borough (Appendices 3 and 3A). CCAL estimates that there were between 3,500 (assuming a 6% coefficient) and 6,500 (assuming a plausible 12% coefficient) and 7,900 (using a wider 15% coefficient) premature deaths due to PM2.5 in London in 2005. The actual numbers may be around 10% higher depending on average population-weighted exposures in outer London. These numbers dwarf the 1,031 premature deaths due to PM10 in 2005 that the government told Mayor Livingstone which were based on a coefficient of 0.75% per 10 ug/m3 increase in PM10 (per COMEAP’s 1998 recommendation) (refer to CCAL letter to Mayor Johnson dated 20 September 2009).

Health risks - Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) (see also Appendix 4)

31. At Environmental Protection UK’s autumn conference on 12 November 2009, CCAL recollects Professor Jonathan Ayres, Chairman of COMEAP, making a personal comment (i.e. not official COMEAP policy) to the whole meeting that public exposure to ambient concentrations of nitrogen dioxide in the urban environment is ‘irrelevant’ for public health. CCAL recollects Professor Ayres went on to emphasise though that NO2 has the advantage of being very easy to monitor and it is a reliable indicator of hazardous vehicle emissions. Despite these important clarifications, CCAL considers that Professor Ayres’ personal comments could be a source of public confusion and therefore merit clarification from the government.

Environmental risks

32. CCAL draws the EAC’s attention to the European Commission’s press release dated 12 December 2007 which included estimates of the cost impact of air pollution on biodiversity. See:

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/07/571&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

Summary health issues and the effective communication of them

33. A cynic might say that COMEAP in 2009 chose not to increase its coefficient of total mortality for PM2.5, despite significant new research published in 2005 and 2006, because: it did not wish to ‘run’ ahead’ of WHO advice (2006); the European Commission’s CAFÉ programme; and/or Defra’s Air Quality Strategy (2007). A cynic might also suggest that COMEAP may have been concerned about presenting health impact coefficients much higher than those it had identified in 1998 and 2001.

34. CCAL’s carefully considered view, influenced by comments in the Peer Review of COMEAP 2009, is that COMEAP is likely to have understated (perhaps very substantially) in 2009 the health impact of poor air quality.

35. Further, CCAL considers that the Precautionary Principle should be followed when public health is at risk. On this basis, COMEAP’s 2009 recommendations point to coefficients of 12% or 15% per 10 ug/m3 PM2.5.

36. Irrespective of the correct coefficient for total mortality, CCAL considers it important to communicate the health impact of poor air quality appropriately (i.e. in a manner which is meaningful and most useful) to different audiences. There are four common metrics: premature or attributable deaths; total (e.g. national) years of life lost (YLL); average reduction in life expectancy across the whole UK population; and years lost per statistical victim. In CCAL’s experience, premature death and years of life lost per statistical victim are the most effective measures to use for communication with the general public. Clearly, as with all risks, it is important to explain the meaning of the metric carefully. YLL may be appropriate for economists et al.

37. Please note that CCAL has not mentioned the health impact of other forms of air pollution in this memorandum e.g. ozone (O3) and sulphur dioxide (SO2).

38. In CCAL’s view, Londoners should be warned that up to one person in eight who died in Greater London in 2005 may have done so due to exposure to dangerous airborne particles (assuming only average UK population-weighted exposures in London). Research published in 2001 by Professor Nino Kunzli suggests that those who die prematurely due to dangerous airborne particles may do so, on average, 9.8 years early. On this basis, the health impact of poor air quality in London is similar or greater to that for alcoholism, obesity and/or smoking.

Steps that need to be taken to ensure that air quality targets will be met in future

39. Many steps need to be taken to improve air quality in the UK and comply fully with air quality laws including those set out below.

40. The government must ‘grip’ the UK’s serious air quality problem and deliver on its responsibilities.

41. The government must disclose as a matter of urgency its assessment of the number of premature deaths due to dangerous airborne particles (PM2.5) in each region of the UK in 2005 (or preferably a more recent year) (using at a minimum COMEAP 2009’s 6% coefficient) together with a Precautionary Principle number (e.g. the 15% coefficient). Also an estimate of the years of life lost per statistical victim. These metrics are provided for other health risks e.g. obesity and smoking.

42. The government should scrap COMEAP or revamp it to ensure its independence, effective governance and focus on highlighting multiple metrics and adopting explicitly a faster review of evidence and the use of the Precautionary Principle approach to protect public health. CCAL would favour replacing COMEAP with a body more like the Health Effects Institute in the USA with its Independent Board of Directors (with legal duties). See: http://www.healtheffects.org/index.html

43. The government must weigh benefits and costs against the need to meet air pollution deadlines whether for air quality or climate change.

44. The government should give the Mayor of London legal responsibility for ensuring full compliance with air quality laws for PM10 immediately.

45. The government needs to take a strong lead on ensuring compliance with air quality laws for NO2. In CCAL’s view this may require ‘every measure available including the kitchen sink’. See Defra’s write up of its NO2 measures workshop dated 4 August 2009.

46. It is imperative that planning takes place now to ensure full compliance with air quality laws for PM2.5 since these are likely to drive public health benefits once EU limit values for PM10 and NO2 are met.

47. CCAL has proposed 65 recommendations to improve air quality in London (Appendix 7). Many are relevant nationally. These include ‘The London Matrix’, ‘The London Principle’ and ‘The London Circles’.

48. The government must maximise economy of scale benefits by taking an active lead and giving directions on measures such as inner city low emission zones (to avoid national waste and chaos).

49. The government must drop its myopic focus on CO2 to the exclusion of other air pollutants. In particular, its approach to diesel has been a significant cause of poor quality in our biggest cities.

50. A major public understanding campaign should be launched to warn people about the dangers of poor air quality and the measures individuals can take to reduce its impact.

51. Government should press the European Commission and the WHO to update urgently (and well before 2013) their recommendations for the health impact of poor air quality based on the most up to date scientific research referred to in this memorandum or otherwise.

52. Protecting public health and complying with air quality laws will show how air pollution and sustainability can be tackled successfully. The 2012 Olympics offers an opportunity to do so.

Close

53. CCAL would be pleased to clarify or provide further evidence and/or give verbal evidence to the EAC.

54. Please confirm that CCAL may publish this letter on its website and otherwise circulate it.

55. CCAL has copied this letter to the National Audit Office team investigating air quality for the EAC.

With best wishes.

Yours sincerely

Simon Birkett
Founder and Principal Contact
Campaign for Clean Air in London

Enclosures

Cc: National Audit Office

Note: the full letter appears as an attachment with three further appendices   more »

CAMPAIGN LETTER: 17 November 2009

Boris Johnson
Mayor of London
Greater London Authority
City Hall
The Queen’s Walk
More London
London SE1 2AA

By email: MAQS@london.gov.uk

17 November 2009


Dear Mayor Johnson

Mayor of London has a statutory duty to ensure his Air Quality Strategy (AQS) includes policies and proposals for the achievement of the air quality standards

‘Clean Air in London’ and Health Protection Agency have agreed estimates of premature deaths in London due to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) in 2005 (assuming average-only UK exposure): 3,000 (COMEAP central estimate); 5,600 (plausible estimate); and 6,900 (Precautionary Principle)

The draft AQS is a start but not yet ‘fit for purpose’. Five NGOs (and others) have written therefore to the European Commission urging it to reject the UK’s application to delay compliance with the EU limit values for PM10

I am writing on behalf of the cross-party Campaign for Clean Air in London (CCAL) to respond to the consultation on the Mayor’s draft Air Quality Strategy (AQS) which opened on 5 October and closes on 30 November 2009. Thank you for the opportunity for do so. The full consultation document can be seen at:

http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/environment/air_quality/index.jsp

Details of CCAL’s Mission and a list of its supporters can be found at www.cleanairinlondon.org.

CCAL supports strongly (except if in conflict with this letter in which case this letter prevails): all the comments made by Environmental Protection UK and ClientEarth in their responses to the consultation; the 65 Recommendations submitted previously by CCAL to your environment team (attached); and the cross-party report published by the Environment Committee of the London Assembly on 1 May 2009 titled ‘Every Breath You Take’ which can be seen at:

http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/reports/environment/air-quality-report-200904.pdf

Please consider these submissions and include all their recommendations in the Mayor’s AQS.

Summary

The Mayor’s draft AQS is a start but it is not yet ‘fit for purpose’. To become ‘fit for purpose’ it should apply the Precautionary Principle to tackle a serious public health problem and must show how air quality laws will be complied with in full.

CCAL has agreed with government officials that some 3,000 premature deaths occurred due to exposure to dangerous airborne particles (PM2.5) in London in 2005 (even assuming average UK population-weighted exposure) and that the number may have been 6,900 (again assuming average UK population-weighted exposure). At the higher level that would represent one in eight deaths in London in 2005. Professor Nino Kunzli estimated in 2001 that the amount of time lost per statistical victim is 9.8 years equating to some 0.6 years in the total population (i.e. seven to eight months). Please recognise the scale and urgency of this public health crisis in the Mayor’s AQS.

The Greater London Authority Act 1999 (GLA Act) requires that the Mayor of London’s AQS contains ‘… policies and proposals – for the achievement in Greater London of the air quality standards and objectives prescribed in regulations made under the Environment Act.’ In ‘Mayor answers to London’, you have admitted to Mike Tuffrey that ‘expected’ compliance with PM10 limit values is ‘subject to: detailed concentration modeling; and – importantly – to full funding of the programme and support from boroughs and central government’. You have stated that concentrations of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) need to be reduced by some 80% to ensure compliance with the limit values for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) by January 2015 and yet your AQS plans shows only reductions in emissions of NOx of 35-40% by 2015. You have omitted to address other air quality laws also e.g. the need to ensure annual average concentrations of NO2 remain below 60 micrograms per cubic metre (ug/m3) from 1 January 2010. This is not good enough. Please recognise the scale and urgency of these legal duties in the Mayor’s AQS and comply fully with relevant health-based laws throughout London.

In CCAL’s view, the Mayor has the legal powers necessary to ensure full compliance with the European Union (EU) limit values for PM10 throughout London by June 2011 (or forthwith if the UK fails to obtain a time extension for PM10, as seems likely). Indeed, London is the only city in the UK expected still to breach those standards by that date. In contrast, over 100 cities and towns across the UK are expected to breach limit values for NO2 from January 2010, with London experiencing the highest concentrations of any capital city in western (or eastern) Europe. In CCAL’s view, the limit values for PM10 could be achieved quickly through the adoption of sensible transport policies (e.g. a Berlin style inner low emission zone) whereas the latter will require ‘everything including the kitchen sink’ (backed by numerous national initiatives and funding).

CCAL is particularly concerned that the Mayor is taking ‘one or two steps backwards’ on air quality when ‘one or two bold steps forward’ are required. The delay of Phase 3 of the LEZ and the removal of the WEZ seem certain, based on the draft AQS, to result in an unnecessary and unacceptable health burden on the public and exacerbate breaches of air quality laws. This is totally unacceptable. CCAL urges you to implement one or more inner LEZs by early 2011. CCAL is concerned that you may have wrongly dismissed such an approach by wrongly weighing the costs and benefits of a Euro 4 inner zone with a Euro 3 outer zone when you should have considered the same standards for both (since the standards must be met in inner London whether through a carefully chosen inner zone or a blunt outer zone). A transect of London for annual average concentrations of oxides of nitrogen demonstrates this situation clearly (attached).

CCAL urges you to go from ‘zero to hero’ simultaneously on environment, transport and public health matters. You could achieve a wonderful legacy for London by ensuring full compliance with air quality laws by the 2012 Olympics and put in place measures that will surely save thousands of lives. Please show the world how air pollution can be tackled successfully in all large cities including London.

Protecting public health

Poor air quality is a major public health issue in London. London is well known for having the worst air quality in the UK and amongst the worse in Europe. Without robust, early action, the UK is set to breach health-based air quality laws in London every year up to and including 2012 (and thereafter).

CCAL therefore wrote to you, in a letter dated 20 September 2009, urging you to tackle fully and urgently this public health problem and apply the Precautionary Principle when developing your AQS (including government recommendations for sensitivity analyses).

It is particularly disappointing therefore that you have failed to include any estimates for the health impact of poor air quality in your draft AQS. CCAL therefore urges you again to do so when determining the extent of policies and proposals needing to be included in the draft AQS for public consultation. CCAL’s letter of 20 September is attached and should be considered part of this submission.

CCAL was invited to meet government officials on 21 October including the Health Protection Agency (HPA) to discuss the letter of 20 September and agree the health impact of poor air quality in London. CCAL and the HPA have agreed that some 3,000 people died prematurely in London due to dangerous airborne particles (PM2.5) in 2005 (using the latest recommendation of the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP) of a 6% coefficient and assuming only UK average populated-weighted exposures in London). CCAL and the HPA have also agreed, using a similar recommendation and assumption, that a plausible upper limit may be 5,600 (using a 12% coefficient) and the actual number of premature deaths may have been 6,900 (using a 15% coefficient) (out of some 52,995 total deaths in Greater London in 2005). The detailed method and calculations are shown in Appendix One. These are shocking numbers and exclude deaths from other forms of air pollution e.g. ozone (O3) and sulphur dioxide (SO2).

In a wide ranging and thorough discussion at the above meeting:

i. CCAL and the HPA agreed estimates for the number of premature deaths due to PM2.5 in London in 2005 assuming the three coefficients recommended by COMEAP (i.e. 6%, 12% and 15% as above);

ii. the HPA offered to send a weblink to the Executive Summary of the COMEAP 1998 Report titled ‘The Quantification of the Effects of Air Pollution on Health in the United Kingdom’. See below:

http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/comeap/statementsreports/airpol7.htm

iii. we agreed for the relevant reference, in the third paragraph on page 5 of the letter, that the COMEAP Report 2009 might have used better wording such as ‘but linear scaling is a reasonable approximation in certain circumstances’;

iv. the HPA team pointed out that the COMEAP 1998 Report assessed the risk of premature death due to short term exposure to poor air quality whereas subsequent reports (2001 and thereafter) have assessed deaths due to long term exposure to poor air quality. COMEAP recommended a coefficient of 0.75% for the former and 1.0% for the latter in its 2001 Report (now 6%);

v. the HPA team pointed out that the health impact of short term exposure to poor air quality is assessed using time series analysis and deaths from all age groups. Long term, cohort studies usually apply to deaths amongst those aged 30 years and older; and

vi. the Defra team pointed out the health costs referred to on page 9 of the letter are ‘societal’ values not the cash cost to the Department of Health.

These were the only changes proposed to the letter other than identifying the need to agree subsequently an updated estimate, using COMEAP’s latest recommendations, of the 1,031 premature deaths referred to on page 3 of the letter. At the end of that meeting, CCAL asked the relevant officials to consider and revert with their estimate:

i. of the 1,031 premature deaths referred to on page 3 of the letter based on COMEAP’s current 6% coefficient for PM2.5 and assuming ratios of PM2.5 to PM10 of 65%, 70% and 75%; and

ii. for the most recent year possible, the number of premature deaths due to PM2.5 (and preferably all air pollution) in Greater London using 6%, 12% and 15% coefficients (and, if necessary, say 65%, 70% and 75% ratios for PM2.5 to PM10).

A reply is awaited but still expected.

The HPA team expressed concern that the number of premature deaths should be presented in a bar chart to show how the number of premature deaths would fall gradually over time as concentrations of dangerous airborne particles fall. CCAL agreed this approach would be useful but pointed out that it would need to show also the number of deaths due to PM10 and/or PM2.5 between the years, say, of 2000 and 2010 with a line showing actual population-weighted exposures to particulate matter over the same period i.e. not assuming sharply falling concentrations due to optimistic modeling.

The numbers estimated to die prematurely due to poor air quality have risen sharply in recent years as large scale, long term scientific studies have been completed. CCAL urges the Mayor therefore to be ‘upfront’ with people about the sheer scale of the risks in a way that means something to people i.e. not using abstract concepts for the entire 61 million UK population such as total (i.e. millions of) years of life lost and/or reduction in average life expectancy of up to seven to eight months nationally.

In CCAL’s view, people should be told that up to one person in eight who died in London in 2005 may have done so due to exposure to dangerous airborne particles (assuming only average UK population-weighted exposures in London). Research published in 2001 by Professor Nino Kunzli suggests that those who die prematurely due to dangerous airborne particles may do so, on average, 9.8 years early.

The health impact of poor air quality is similar or greater to that for alcoholism, obesity and/or smoking.   more »

CAMPAIGN UPDATE: 1 March 2009

Government maps show action is needed urgently if the United Kingdom is to avoid breaching health based air quality laws for nitrogen dioxide (NO2), a toxic gas, in London from 2010 to 2015 and beyond

United Kingdom tops the league for toxic traffic fumes in Europe with: the highest proportion of zones breaching the annual average limit value plus margin of tolerance for NO2; and the most polluted capital city

Government maps obtained by the Campaign for Clean Air in London (CCAL), under the Freedom of Information Act, show that the government expects currently the United Kingdom (UK) to breach health based air quality laws for nitrogen dioxide (NO2), a toxic gas, in London in 2010. These breaches are expected to continue each year thereafter up to, including and beyond 2015. These maps are attached to this Campaign update.

Simon Birkett, Principal Contact of CCAL, said:

“The United Kingdom (UK) is already on the receiving end of legal action from the European Commission (the Commission) for breaching legal standards for dangerous airborne particles (PM10) and missing the deadline to apply for a time extension to comply with them. This legal action must be broadened and escalated rapidly unless the UK comes up with a convincing plan to justify a time extension. ‘No time extension’ will be better than ‘a time extension with a weak plan’ because the former would, at least, leave the UK wide open to legal action to force the government to produce finally a credible plan to protect public health.

“The UK’s failure to tackle nitrogen dioxide (NO2), a toxic gas and an indicator of even worse pollutants, dwarfs its failures with dangerous airborne particles. For example, London has the worst annual average level of NO2 of any capital city in western – or eastern – Europe. In Brompton Road and Marylebone Road, current levels of NO2 exceed 95 micrograms per cubic metre (ug/m3) (i.e. over twice the World Health Organisation backed legal standard of 40 ug/m3 from January 2010). Over 100 UK cities breached in 2008 the level that will become the legal standard in 10 months time.

“It is astonishing that the government intends to spend the next 18 months to two years debating plans and programmes to include in a time extension application for NO2 – when it admits it already expects the UK to fail to meet at least one of the three requirements for such a time extension in London from January 2010 (i.e. Article 22(3) of the Directive on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe).

“Why is the government not working out now how the UK will become compliant with air quality laws for NO2 as quickly as possible after 1 January 2010? Legal compliance will require three things: the UK proving it has genuinely tried to achieve compliance by January 2010; a convincing plan to comply fully with limit values for NO2 by January 2015; and determined action to ensure average annual levels of NO2 stay below 60 ug/m3 (i.e. the limit value plus margin of tolerance) from January 2010. None of these is currently likely. In stark contrast, Germany, for example, is working hard to have inner low emission zones in place in some 40 cities by the end of 2009 to help it comply with the same health standards.

London needs: the Prime Minister to back a ‘green deal’ of major new measures; and the Mayor of London to promise to deliver upon it in a timely manner. London needs urgently one or more additional inner low emission zones and other measures, including incentives, to tackle harmful emissions at their source. Premature death and irreversible climate change are even worse fates than economic depression. Why can’t our political leaders wake up and tackle two problems at the same time?”

   more »

Note: The following letter was sent by The Knightsbridge Association not the Campaign for Clean Air in London: 3 January 2009

The Rt. Hon. Hilary Benn MP
Secretary of State
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Nobel House
17 Smith Square
London SW1P 3JR

3 January 2009

By registered post and email: hilary.benn@defra.gsi.gov.uk

Dear Secretary of State

Near record air pollution in central London in 2008

Secretary of State for Defra has a legal duty to ensure health based limit values are attained and not exceeded once attained

The Knightsbridge Association asserts its right to require the government to develop an action plan to improve NO2 and PM10 air quality in the short term

The Knightsbridge Association presses the Secretary of State to direct Mayor Johnson not to remove or weaken the western extension of the Congestion Charging Zone unless a stronger inner Low Emission Zone is put in place simultaneously upon its removal

Summary

I am writing on behalf of The Knightsbridge Association (the KA) to urge you, as the relevant Secretary of State, to ensure that the United Kingdom (UK) complies in full with air quality laws in the wider Knightsbridge area of London (and elsewhere throughout the UK).

The KA is an amenity society registered with the Civic Trust. It represents around 1,000 residents and businesses in the wider Knightsbridge area bounded broadly by Hyde Park Corner in the east and Queen’s Gate in the west. Brompton Road, Cromwell Road and Knightsbridge pass through this area. Our website address is:

www.knightsbridgeassociation.org.uk.

For a map of the local area, please see:

http://www.multimap.com/maps/?qs=brompton+road&countryCode=GB#map=51.49919,-0.16453|16|4&bd=useful_information&loc=GB:51.49919:-0.16453:17|brompton%20road|Brompton%20Road%20(A4),%20London,%20England,%20SW7

The KA is concerned about serious breaches of air quality laws in this part of London (and elsewhere). Local air pollution levels in 2008 were close to record levels. Annual mean levels of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) were well over twice the maximum level recommended by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and peak levels occurred some 427 times compared to the WHO’s maximum recommended frequency of 18 times. The KA estimates that annual average levels of particulate matter (PM10) in this area exceeded 40 micrograms per cubic metre (ug/m3) and may have approached 50 ug/m3. The WHO has stated that there is no safe level for exposure to particulate matter. This situation is clearly unsustainable and unacceptable.

European Union (EU) air quality laws required annual average levels of PM10 air quality to attain 40 ug/m3 from 1 January 2005 and for that level not to be exceeded once attained. These laws were transposed into UK law in the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2007 (AQSR 2007). These Regulations impose inter alia a statutory duty on you, as the relevant Secretary of State, to develop action plans to improve air quality in the short term. This duty was reaffirmed and clarified recently in a preliminary Judgement by the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The KA is hereby notifying you that it respectfully requests and requires in respect of the wider Knightsbridge area that you as Secretary of State: (i) prepare and implement urgently an action plan that is capable of reducing to a minimum the risk that the limit values for NO2 and PM10 will be exceeded and of ensuring a gradual return to a level below those limit values; and (ii) at least maintain air quality (where limit values have already been met), and otherwise comply in full with relevant air quality laws. Please note that the requirement that limit values must not be exceeded once attained is an absolute legal requirement.

The KA is concerned further that decisions may be taken by the Mayor of London and/or others during 2009 or subsequently which would adversely and illegally impact air quality in this area e.g. the possible removal or weakening of the western extension of the Congestion Charging Zone (the WEZ). In the KA’s carefully considered view, such a decision would inter alia worsen air quality where it has attained limit values for PM10 and thereby breach air quality laws unless at least directly offsetting measures were put in place simultaneously upon its removal. These measures might include dynamic road pricing (such as ‘tag and beacon’) and/or one or more inner Low Emission Zones (which will be needed anyway to ensure that air quality laws are complied with cost effectively). Please therefore issue ‘directions’ as necessary to the Mayor of London and/or others to ensure that relevant air quality laws are complied with fully.

The KA hopes, if you respond positively and energetically to this letter in respect of the wider Knightsbridge area and/or London as a whole, that its actions may set a valuable precedent and encourage other community groups in London (and elsewhere) to seek improvements in local air quality and reductions in air pollution generally.   more »

CAMPAIGN RESPONSE: 27 September 2008

Boris Johnson
Mayor of London and Chair of Transport for London
Transport for London
Western Extension Consultation
12th Floor Windsor House
42-50 Victoria Street
London SW1H 0TL

Congestion Charging
Western Extension Consultation
Chiswick Gate
598 – 608 Chiswick High Road
London W4 5RT

By email: westernextension@tfl.gov.uk and mayor@london.gov.uk

Dear Mayor Johnson,

Consultation on the future of the Congestion Charge Western Extension (CCWE)

Keep the Congestion Charge Western Extension or an even tougher, additional, inner Low Emission Zone will be needed by early 2010

This response to Transport for London’s (TfL’s) public consultation on the future of the Congestion Charge Western Extension (CCWE), which is due to close on 5 October 2008, is sent on behalf of the Campaign for Clean Air in London (CCAL). See:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/roadusers/congestioncharging/westernextension/default.aspx

In your letter to CCAL, dated 31 July 2008, you requested that CCAL submit a formal response to this consultation in September.

Summary

Government maps, recently published by CCAL, highlight yet again, that road transport is the biggest single cause of all breaches of air quality laws across London. The solutions needed involve two overlapping ‘circles’ of measures – one for congestion (since vehicles are about half as polluting once they reach speeds of 30 kilometres per hour) and the other for emissions (such as low emission zones) – that target the most polluting vehicles in the most polluted areas.

CCAL urges the Mayor of London (the Mayor) to keep the CCWE primarily on the grounds that traffic levels would rise significantly without it, leading to increased pollutants from vehicles. In CCAL’s view, it would be foolish of the Mayor to remove the CCWE when he would then need to toughen further additional measures, such as one or more additional inner low emission zones, that are already long overdue to reduce sharply hazardous vehicle emissions to comply with air quality laws in the same area of London.

CCAL urges the Mayor to pursue vigorously stronger measures to reduce congestion across London. Instead of weakening (or removing the CCWE), the Mayor should build on the current ‘blunt instrument’ by offering dynamic (or ‘intelligent’) road pricing, such as ‘tag and beacon’ or better, in parallel with the current CCWE and Congestion Charge Central (CCC). This would give people the choice of paying a fixed congestion charge or opting to pay a flexible charge i.e. such that they might pay nothing to drive short distances outside the hours of congestion. In due course, once dynamic road pricing is shown to work well, it should take over fully from the current ‘blunt’ scheme and be extended to operate, where necessary, across London.

CCAL is concerned that a relatively small number of vehicle owners, who are primarily responsible for congestion, are - at little or no cost to themselves - having a disproportionate, negative impact on the health of hundreds of thousands of Londoners. Those causing congestion should pay the full environmental cost of their actions as part of a much wider ‘polluter pays’ strategy in London. CCAL supports measures to reduce congestion, in their own right, as a means of increasing road capacity and improving quality of life for the vast majority of Londoners.

Last but most importantly, CCAL emphasises the need for the Mayor to work closely with the government to implement measures urgently to ensure that air quality laws are fully complied with throughout London not just in the CCWE area.

   more »

Campaign letter: 17 January 2008

London 2012: “Greenest Games ever” or “Most sustainable ever” breaches of air quality laws with EU and IOC legal action?

Government has no actions planned yet to comply with Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) air quality laws in London by 2010, 2015 or 2020

Commitments received from the four main candidates for Mayor of London

The Campaign for Clean Air in London (CAiL) is writing to obtain a commitment now from the Government, on behalf of itself and the whole Olympic Family in the United Kingdom (the UK Olympic Family), in relation to the London 2012 Olympic Games and the London 2012 Paralympic Games (London 2012). The commitment is that they will take all necessary actions to ensure that London 2012 will, at an absolute minimum, comply sustainably and fully with the letter and spirit of all applicable UK and European Union (EU) air quality laws and the Host City Contract for London 2012.

CAiL also urges the Government to go further and make a commitment with regard to nitrogen dioxide (NO2). The commitment is to ensure that London 2012 meets the existing EU Limit Values for NO2, which are due (under the existing EU air quality directives) to be met by January 2010, by London 2012.

   more »