CAMPAIGN RESPONSE: 4 August 2011

Government fails to make any case for a time extension beyond 2010 to comply with EU limit values for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in London (and fails also for all other UK zones)

‘Clean Air in London’ will urge European Commission to fast track infraction action

The Rt. Hon. Caroline Spelman MP
Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs
c/o Ekoere Dienne
Atmosphere and Local Environment Programme
Defra
Area 5F
Ergon House
Horseferry Road
London SW1P 3AL

By post and email: EUAirQuality@defra.gsi.gov.uk

Dear Secretary of State

I am writing on behalf of Clean Air in London (CAL) to respond to the consultation by the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) on air quality plans to meet European Union (EU) limit values for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in England (Draft AQ Plans).

Thank you for the opportunity to do so. Information about CAL including its supporters can be found on its website at www.cleanairinlondon.org.

Defra’s consultation documents can be seen at:

http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2011/06/09/no2-consultation/

http://www.defra.gov.uk/consult/2011/06/09/air-quality/

http://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/library/no2ten/

http://www.archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/air/airquality/docs/ia-no2.pdf

Consultation question

You have asked specifically for comments on ‘the extent to which [the Draft AQ Plans] represent correctly the efforts underway at national, regional and local level to achieve compliance with the NO2 limits as quickly as possible’. Without doubt, the Draft AQ Plans fail to reflect the current (inadequate) situation most particularly by: overstating current plans; and understating current challenges. For example: in relation to Heathrow, local plans refer to action initiated in 2006 on road pricing which was never pursued; and in respect of challenges there is no attempt to mitigate the air pollution impacts of the Olympic Route Network in 2012.

CAL guesses that Defra hopes to submit AQ Plans for a number of zones to the European Commission by 30 September 2011 as part of a time extension notification to delay compliance with the NO2 limit values (TEN) in those zones and/or agglomerations.

In CAL’s view, the Draft AQ Plans fail to justify a time extension for NO2 in London or anywhere else in the UK and do not meet the requirement to keep the exceedance period as short as possible.

Summary

World Health Organisation Air Quality Guidelines (AQG) offer guidance in reducing the health impacts of air pollution.

Two EU limit values for NO2, which align with the AQG, have been in legislation since 1999 and required to be met under European and UK law since 1 January 2010. These are an annual mean concentration of 40 micrograms per cubic metre (ug/m3) and an hourly mean concentration of 200 ug/m3 not to be exceeded more than 18 times in a calendar year.

London has the highest mean concentrations of NO2 of all 27 capital cities in Europe. Concentrations of NO2 in Marylebone Road far exceeded legal limits in 2010 with an annual mean of 98 ug/m3 and 534 exceedances of the hourly standard. Concentrations are likely to be similar in many other parts of London.

The Government has known for many years that these obligations would be challenging to meet and yet has failed to act appropriately. It seems to have put its faith in European engine emission standards even when these were shown not to have been performing as expected. Worse, the current and previous Governments have encouraged the rising volume of traffic on UK roads and the progressive dieselisation of the light vehicle market since 2000. Instead we need fewer and cleaner vehicles.

The EU directive on ambient air and cleaner air for Europe (AQ Directive) entered into force on 11 June 2008. It reconfirmed the NO2 limit values and included a time extension mechanism. The time extension mechanism required certain actions to be taken by 1 January 2010 and allowed Member States to apply for a time extension until 1 January 2015 to comply with NO2 limit values subject to strict conditions. Key conditions include the need to: show all possible actions were taken to meet the NO2 limit values by the original deadline; and ‘demonstrate how conformity will be achieved with the limit values before the new deadline’.

Having signed up to the new AQ Directive as recently as 2008, the Government is now saying it can’t or won’t comply in London with the NO2 hourly limit value until 2015 and the NO2 annual limit value until 2025. This is despite the Mayor of London showing as recently as December 2010 how the NO2 limit values could be complied with in full in London by 2015 and The City of London Corporation publishing a report showing how the NO2 limit values could be attained even in the most polluted streets by 2015.

There is no evidence in the Draft AQ Plans to support a time extension beyond 1 January 2010 to comply with the NO2 limit values. In contrast, there is evidence the Government is or plans to lobby the European Commission to scrap or weaken the NO2 limit value(s). Commissioner Potočnik, Commissioner for the Environment, has made clear ‘limit values or timetables are not negotiable’. The UK therefore faces the prospect of infraction action by late 2011 or in early 2012 in the months leading up to the Olympic and Paralympic Games and fines of perhaps £300m per annum in due course thereafter.

CAL is concerned particularly that the Government’s steps to deal with the problem are not yet backed by adequate transport or other measures. CAL is also concerned that your Draft AQ Plans do not include specific measures for 2012 to protect public health and comply fully with legal standards e.g. during the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee and the Olympic and Paralympic Games.

In CAL’s view, the only measure likely to meet substantially all the above requirements is a network of additional ‘Clean Air Zones’ for road transport in central and inner London and around Heathrow. It should be combined with ambitious other measures. Further details of CAL’s proposal were set out in its response to the City of Westminster’s recent consultation on its Draft Air Quality Plan. CAL has attached that response which forms part of this response to Defra.

In summary, CAL:

i. wants the Government and the Mayor of London to comply fully with air quality laws;
ii. wants the European Commission to commence infraction action against the UK at the earliest opportunity to enforce NO2 limit values (and those for dangerous airborne particles (PM10) if necessary);
iii. considers it totally unacceptable that the UK and perhaps London should be facing – largely through the Government’s inaction – the prospect of unlimited lump sum and daily fines, perhaps totalling £300m per annum, for breaching NO2 and/or PM10 limit values; and
iv. wants the Government and the Mayor to act with urgency to reduce through all necessary measures harmful transport emissions and other air pollutants to comply in full with limit values by their due deadlines.

In practice, this means that if the Government and the Mayor make all necessary efforts now, the UK can still avoid EU fines.

The Government fails to make any case for a time extension to comply with EU limit values for NO2 in London (and fails also for all other UK zones for one or more reasons). CAL cannot understand why the Government has produced Draft AQ Plans that show breaches of NO2 limit values in London until 2025 unless it is part of some elaborate and misguided ruse.


Tweet


   more »

CAMPAIGN RESPONSE: 11 April 2011

Stakeholder consultation on the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the Olympic Transport Plan (OTP) 2nd edition consultation draft

On basis of information provided, OTP would lead to: breaches of PM10 daily limit value; likely aggravated breaches of NO2 limit values; and an increase in air pollution. This would be unlawful and vulnerable to legal challenge through judicial review. The OTP proposal should be rejected

Rather than playing mind-games with Londoners or a last minute odd and even number plate ban – as they had in Beijing – the Mayor should be banning all the oldest diesel vehicles from inner London during the ‘greenest Games ever’

Dear Mr Sumner and Mayor Johnson

Clean Air in London (CAL) welcomes the opportunity offered by the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) to participate in the stakeholder consultation on the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the Olympic Transport Plan 2nd edition consultation draft (OTP).

http://www.london2012.com/documents/oda-transport/sea-environmental-report.pdf

This response is addressed also to the Mayor of London, as Chair of Transport for London (TfL), given that TfL assumed responsibility from the ODA on 9 February 2011 for delivery of key 2012 Games transport programmes including the 2012 Games Travel Demand Management, Olympic and Paralympic Route Networks (ORN and PRN) and Road Freight Management (RFM) programmes in London. See:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/archive/18237.aspx

CAL is a not for profit organisation with a mission that includes campaigning to achieve urgently and sustainably at least World Health Organisation Standards (WHO) of air quality throughout London.

CAL is independent of any government funding, has cross-party support and many supporters, both individuals in London and organisations. CAL provides a channel for both public concern and expert opinion on air pollution in London. This document provides both general and expert comments in response to the consultation.

Traffic is a major cause of air pollution in London which in turn contributes to thousands of premature deaths per year and many thousands more illnesses, chronic illness and disability. For this reason, traffic measures are also measures to deal with air quality.

The details of our consultation response are set out below, but in brief:

1. CAL does not think the consultation has been adequate because insufficient information was provided in the consultation document.
2. the ORN and the PRN would cause the breach of one or more limit values for dangerous airborne particles (PM10) and the likely aggravated breach of other limit values (i.e. the NO2 annual mean and NO2 hourly limit values).
3. the ODA’s own modelling suggests that the operation of the ODA and PRN would lead to an unlawful increase in air pollution, inconsistent with European Union (EU) law.
4. there has been no, or no adequate, consideration of the impact of the proposals on particularly vulnerable groups, or minority ethnic groups.

Some of these issues were highlighted in speeches by Lord Berkeley in the House of Lords in January and June 2010. Lord Berkeley warned then about the possible need for a last minute ‘odd and even number plate ban’ if the OTP was inadequate. It seems his words were prophetic. See:

5 January 2010

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?gid=2010-01-05a.118.0

14 June 2010

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?gid=2010-06-14a.876.1

CAL notes the ODA’s promise in its letter to CAL dated 22 March 2011 that included:

“The ODA undertook the preliminary design for the Olympic Route Network (ORN) and for the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) process, however in accordance with our strategy the detailed design and operation have been handed over to Transport for London (TfL). Funding has also been handed over to complete works associated with the build and operational phases.

“As detailed design of the routes, and therefore impacts, had not been finalised at the point of handover, the ODA will work collaboratively with TfL to ensure any statutory obligations are discharged in an appropriate and cost effective manner.” CAL emphasis.

These statements give CAL a ‘substantive legitimate expectation’ that offsetting measures will be introduced by the ODA and/or TfL to ensure that there is no worsening of air quality as a result of the ORN and/or PRN. As yet, these are: vague or unspecified; and still unquantified.

Further details of CAL’s concerns are set out below.

Adequacy of the consultation: the information provided is inadequate

CAL believes that the information which has been provided to the public in this consultation document is inadequate. For example, it:

i. looks narrowly at the impact of the ORN and PRN near the Olympic venues and along some major thoroughfares e.g. “However, because of the geographical extent of the ORN and PRN and the limited width of the corridor beyond the network itself that is likely to be affected, it is not practical to describe baseline environmental conditions relating to the whole ORN and PRN” (page 27);

ii. does not take account of the Mayor’s final Air Quality Strategy (MAQS) which was published on 14 December 2010 i.e. more than two months prior to the launch of this consultation. Given the scale of breaches of NO2 limit values in London, the MAQS – if successful – may result in some areas near or along the ORN or PRN, that breached the NO2 limit values in 2010, complying with them in 2011. This would increase the prospect of the ORN and PRN causing aggravated breaches of one or both NO2 limit values (i.e. a limit value being exceeded having been attained) in 2012. Further, the OTP refers to measures in the Mayor’s draft Air Quality Strategy which were subsequently weakened or removed which might have addressed problems during the Olympics e.g. special measures to reduce the number and length of periods of high pollution; and

iii. it assesses compliance with the Air Quality Standards (AQS) when it should be assessing compliance with the EU directive on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe 2008/50/EC and the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 (AQSR 2010).

Inadequate information is provided on where or when the breaches of EU limit values are likely to occur and there is none to quantify the effect of measures needed to ensure the full mitigation of adverse impacts.

CAL submitted requests for information to the ODA and TfL under the Freedom of Information/Environmental Information Regulations on 22 February 2011. It received replies from the ODA and TfL dated 22 March and 6 April respectively. As is clear from the fact that CAL had to make the request(s), the information was not provided in the consultation document itself.

In the circumstances, CAL’s ability to respond to the OTP consultation is compromised.

Response to the proposals, insofar as a response is possible

Notwithstanding and subject to its concerns about the consultation, CAL outlines below the response it is able to make to the proposal. This response is of necessity in general terms.

1. The SEA identifies problems: OTP expected to cause the breach of one or more limit values

Even assuming the ambitious Transport Demand Management (TDM) plan in the OTP is implemented successfully, the OTP is expected to cause breaches of one or more limit values. For example:

“Regarding PM10 monitoring data, it is forecasted that annual mean levels will be below the AQS. However, the number of daily mean exceedances at some roadside sites is anticipated to be more than the allowable number of exceedances” (page 36). CAL emphasis.

Further, Appendix C states in several places: “Both the NO2 and PM10 levels still likely to exceed the AQS in 2012” i.e. at ‘The River Zone’, ‘Central Zone’, ‘Other London venues’ and ‘Other venues’. It is not clear from the consultation documents if these breaches are caused by the OTP and/or just exacerbated by it. As you know, limit values may not be exceeded once attained and air pollution in general may not be worsened.

No breaches of the PM10 limit values are permitted in 2011 or thereafter. NO2 limit values have been breached in London since they entered into force in January 2010 and may only be breached in the period up to January 2015 if the UK obtains a time extension to comply with them and meets various conditions such as the need to ensure NO2 annual mean concentrations do not exceed 60 micrograms per cubic metre (ug/m3). The UK must lodge such an application by 30 September 2011 and the European Commission would then have until 30 June 2012 to object to it (or not). In other words the outcome is likely to be known only in the last few days or weeks before the start of the London 2012 Olympic Games.

You will be aware the UK’s first application for a time extension on PM10 was rejected in December 2009 and the European Commission announced on 11 March 2011 a time extension until 11 June 2011 subject to a temporary and conditional exemption (which has not yet been complied with).

2. The SEA fails to identify and quantify solutions: full mitigation is needed

The consultation appears to dismiss the problems identified on the basis they would be either temporary in time or local in geographical terms i.e. ‘minor temporary adverse effects in some specific locations’ (page 6), ‘minor adverse effect’ (Table 15 on page 80) and/or ‘Overall, a minor temporary adverse effect of the Transport Plan is anticipated in this respect, compared with baseline conditions’ (page 93).

Worse, the consultation highlights the need for a solution or solutions and then fails to specify it or quantify it or them. For example, the consultation states on pages 92 and 93:

“The modelling of the effects of the ORN and PRN indicates that there are a number of locations where quite large increases of traffic flow may occur as a result of diversions necessary for the operation of the ORN and PRN, albeit perhaps for a small number of occasions. This includes a number of locations:

- in the vicinity of the Olympic Park;
- on the main through-routes in the City of London; and
- on the routes serving Wimbledon, Earls Court and Wembley.

“As the detailed planning of the ORN and PRN continues, it will be necessary to ensure that the arrangements for its implementation and the diversion of non-Games Family traffic do not lead to additional breaches of air quality standards. The detailed design of the ORN and PRN has now been handed over to TfL as the delivery partner responsible. Consequently, the scheme will be subject further to TfL’s Project Environmental Evaluation appraisal.

“Outside of London, the anticipated levels of traffic and the way in which the ORN and PRN will be operated mean that it is unlikely that the effects of the ORN and PRN will lead to any significant worsening of air quality.

“However, even if this were the case, it seems unlikely that there would be significant additional emissions of local air pollutants from road traffic during the period in which the Transport Plan will be operational. Also, any effects that were to occur would only do so temporarily, over a relatively short period of time.

“On this basis, it is considered that there would be at worst some minor decrease in baseline air quality associated with emissions from transport due to travel associated with the Games. However, the measures that the Transport Plan will put in place to encourage and ensure that a very high proportion of travel by spectators will be by public transport means that the levels of local pollutant emissions will be lower than would otherwise have been the case without the Plan. Overall, a minor temporary adverse effect of the Transport Plan is anticipated in this respect, compared with baseline conditions.” CAL emphasis.

Travel Demand Management

Olympic Travel Demand Management measures typically include: travel capacity creation measures; travel behaviour change/marketing; traffic efficiency measures; traffic bans; and an emphasis on public transport.

Travel behaviour change/marketing measures seek to manage expectations as part of Olympic transport planning and use the ‘Big Scare’ to influence travel behaviour. The ‘Big Scare’ refers to the concerns which Games city residents have about travel and living conditions during Games time. It was first used to influence demand during the Sydney 2000 Games. For more details, please see:

http://www.cleanairinlondon.org/_attachments/3609596/CAL%20032%20Monash%20Big%20Scare.pdf

http://www.cleanairinlondon.org/_attachments/3609596/CAL%20032%20Monash%20Big%20Scare%202.pdf

Page 87 of the SEA states:

“Overall, it has been estimated that the Games will lead to a nearly 30 reduction in traffic flows on the ORN and PRN and about five per cent additional road traffic elsewhere, although it should be noted that this is at a time of year where traffic levels, particularly in London, are typically lower than average.

“In addition, evidence from the Sydney 2000 Games indicates that there was also a reduction in background travel demand during the period of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games. It has been noted in this respect that ‘a successful travel demand management programme (TDM) … resulted in a notable decrease of background travel in Sydney during the Games. This was largely achieved through a patient and well-orientated pre-Games communications campaign, aimed at citizens, potentially affected residents, local commerce and large businesses’. Such demand management will also be a feature of the London 2012 Transport Plan. On this basis, therefore it is not anticipated that there would be an overall increase in traffic flows and vehicle kilometres during the period that the Transport Plan is operational.” CAL emphasis.

CAL understands that a 30% reduction in non-Games Family traffic would be exceptional during the Olympic Games. In any event, because it depends on the use of the ‘Big Scare’ to manage people’s expectations such reductions are unlikely to be achieved in London given the ‘cat is out of the bag’. Some sort of large scale traffic bans or restrictions therefore seem inevitable for London.

CAL considers that this challenge, when combined with the promise to deliver the ‘greenest Games ever’, represents a major opportunity to adopt a new, innovative approach. Details of the promises to deliver the ‘greenest Games ever’ can be seen at:

http://www.cleanairinlondon.org/blog/_archives/2008/3/29/3609596.html

CAL proposes that the Mayor should adopt a Berlin-style low emission zone for inner London during the 100 days in 2012 covered by the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee, the Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games. This would ban all pre-Euro 4 diesel vehicles with the exception of licenced black taxis dropping off fare paying passengers (but not picking them up) and vulnerable groups. The scheme would continue in Central London after these events.

Based on TfL estimates (provided to CAL in response to a Freedom of Information request) this might affect up to 30% of diesel cars; 55% of LGVs and minibuses; 45% of coaches; 40% of rigid HGVs; and 30% of articulated HGVs. Surely a planned measure like this would be better than a last minute, chaotic odd and even number plate affecting all vehicles? It would reduce vehicle numbers and air pollution.

This scheme would showcase for 100 days in 2012 the London we would see in Central London from late 2012 and more significantly across the city in 2015 and thereafter. It would support the image of the ‘greenest Games ever’ and deliver tangible public health benefits.

Conclusion

On the basis of the information provided, incomplete though it is, the OTP and the operation of the ORN and PRN would lead to:

i. breaches of the PM10 daily limit value in 2012 (e.g. page 36 and Appendix C);
ii. likely aggravated breaches of the NO2 annual mean and NO2 hourly limit values (i.e. exceedances of limit values which had been attained in 2011); and
iii. an increase in harmful concentrations in ambient air.

For the reasons outlined above this would be unlawful and vulnerable to legal challenge through judicial review.

CAL therefore concludes that the ODA, TfL and the Mayor of London should reject the proposal for the OTP. There should be no further outcome without further information and modelling, all of which should be subject to further consultation.

Please contact me if you have any questions or would like more information on any of the points raised in this letter. I have copied this response to interested parties including Count Jacques Rogge and Shaun McCarthy.

With best wishes.

Yours sincerely

Simon Birkett
Founder and Director
Clean Air in London

Cc:

Count Jacques Rogge, President of the International Olympic Committee
Shaun McCarthy, Chair, Commission for Sustainable London 2012
Peter Hendy, Transport for London
Janez Potočnik, Commissioner for the Environment, European Commission
Caroline Spelman, Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs
Philip Hammond, Secretary of State for Transport
The Lord Berkeley, House of Lords
Dr Robert Maynard, Health Protection Agency
Adrian Young, Environment Agency
Darren Johnson AM, Green, Chair, London Assembly Environment Committee
Murad Qureshi AM, Labour, Deputy Chair, London Assembly Environment Committee
Mike Tuffrey AM, Liberal Democrat
James Cleverly AM, Conservative


Tweet
   more »

CAMPAIGN RESPONSE: Published 7 December 2010

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

4 December 2010


Dear Mayor Johnson

Two bold steps within one week to address London’s air pollution problems

Thank you for your letter of 29 November in which you graciously declined an invitation to become an honorary Founder Supporter of Clean Air in London for understandable reasons. You finished your very encouraging letter with an offer to ‘support Clean Air in London in any other way that I can’.

There is a wonderful opportunity for London to be at the forefront of efforts to tackle the terrible impact of poor air quality which you have estimated as including 4,267 premature deaths in 2008 attributable to long-term exposure to dangerous airborne particles (PM2.5). As you will know, there were just over 50,000 deaths in total in London in 2007 (Source: Office of National Statistics).

Clean Air in London asks only that you write please two letters now along the lines set out below.

Let’s admit the scale of the problem

Clean Air in London’s first request is that you write within the next week to Commissioner Potočnik, the European Commissioner for the Environment, saying that in your considered view – and without accepting or apportioning blame – that in London:

i. the PM10 daily limit value has been exceeded in 2010;
ii. the nitrogen dioxide (NO2) hourly limit value has been exceeded in 2010;
iii. the NO2 annual mean limit value is certain to be exceeded in 2010;
iv. the NO2 annual mean limit value plus maximum margin of tolerance may be exceeded in 2010; and
v. irrespective of your view on the likelihood or otherwise of the PM10 daily limit value being complied with throughout London in 2011 (on which you might choose to disagree), the UK has not met all the conditions necessary to obtain a time extension until 2011 to comply with that limit value in London.

Please say also to Commissioner Potočnik that in your considered view the UK, as a Member State, should not oppose a European Court of Justice (ECJ) judgement confirming the above and requesting action to ensure full compliance.

Please make a personal commitment to Commissioner Potočnik that you will do everything you can to ensure these breaches will be rectified so as to avoid after an ECJ judgement: a first written warning from the European Commission for non-compliance with the ECJ judgement; a final written warning; and a further ECJ judgment that would trigger fines you have said could total £300m per year per pollutant.

Let’s do something about it

Given the scale, complexity and urgency of the UK’s air pollution problem there is a need for national and London action and cross-departmental Government action on an almost unprecedented scale to tackle this little-recognised public health crisis.

Clean Air in London’s second request is that you write to the Prime Minister within the next week informing him that you have written to Commissioner Potočnik along the lines outlined above and saying that, in your considered view, the only way to tackle successfully this public health crisis within the timescales needed is for the Prime Minister and you to chair jointly a Clean Air Compliance Taskforce steering group that would meet once a month between now and 2012.

I would encourage you to establish the steering group as a cross-party entity that would meet under the Chatham House Rule unless the Prime Minister and you consider this would be unworkable.

As an aside, Clean Air in London’s view is that the costs and management task of tackling of the NO2 challenge must be met 50% by London and 50% by central Government.

Carpe diem

Both these actions are needed now and you could do them within the next week. If you will take these steps, the specific actions necessary to put London at the forefront of tackling air pollution will follow.

With best wishes.

Yours sincerely

Simon Birkett
Founder and Director
Clean Air in London

Cc:

The Rt. Hon. David Cameron MP, Prime Minister
Commissioner Potočnik, European Commissioner for the Environment
The Rt. Hon. Caroline Spelman MP, Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs
Honorary Founder Supporters of Clean Air in London   more »

CAMPAIGN LETTER: 13 August 2010

Mayor Johnson's draft Air Quality Strategy is still not 'fit for purpose'

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

Conformed and sent by email and post: mayor@london.gov.uk and MAQS@london.gov.uk

12 August 2010

Dear Mayor Johnson and GLA Air Quality team

Mayor Johnson should reject draft Air Quality Strategy for not being ‘fit for purpose’

Daily limit value for PM10 is ‘highly likely’ to be breached again in 2011. Mayor Johnson ‘sets himself up for a fall’ in mid-2011 by predicting PM10 compliance throughout London in 2011 when evidence shows his current plans are regressive, unfunded and inadequate

Mayor should be working to increase transport funding from Government to ensure full compliance with air quality laws throughout London. He risks undermining these efforts and being accused of insincerity if he pursues removal of WEZ with a loss of £55m per annum of net income

After accolades for publishing his health study, Mayor needs to take steps within weeks if London is to win an ‘ovation’ at the London 2012 Olympics and avoid ‘ridicule’ over air quality failings

NOTICE: Please note that the main attachments to this Campaign Letter are subject to Transport for London (TfL) copyright unless otherwise shown. TfL has asked CCAL to note that ‘these documents cannot be considered to be current as they were produced in the development of the draft [Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy (MAQS)]. In some cases, further analysis has been undertaken and the information contained in these documents has been superseded by that contained in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy and draft MAQS’. ENDS

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 (draft AQS) which closes on 13 August 2010 (the Consultation). Thank you for the opportunity to do so.

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

The public consultation documents can be seen at http://www.london.gov.uk/consultation/air-quality but in CCAL’s view they are inadequate. CCAL has asked for further information, only some of which is available. As far as we know, with the exception of information published on 29 June 2010, the additional information provided to CCAL has not been publicised and we think ought to be so in order that the public can comment on it. We also think, for the reasons outlined in this and attached letters, that crucial information is still missing.

This submission attaches and incorporates CCAL’s submissions to the Mayor’s/Transport for London’s (TfL’s) consultations on: postponing Phase 3 of the London low emission zone (LEZ3) dated 24 June 2010; and removing the western extension of the congestion charging zone (WEZ) dated 27 July 2010. It similarly attaches and incorporates CCAL’s submission dated 17 November 2009 on the earlier draft AQS and its letter to Tessa Jowell MP dated 17 January 2008 about ‘No plans to deliver Greenest Games’.

This letter confirms that the totality of the information received to date from TfL and/or the GLA fails still to address the substantive concerns raised by CCAL in its responses to the LEZ3, WEZ and draft AQS consultations.

Summary

The Campaign for Clean Air in London (CCAL) welcomes the opportunity to be consulted on the Mayor’s draft Air Quality Strategy (AQS).

CCAL is a voluntary organisation which campaigns to achieve urgently and sustainably at least World Health Organisation recommended standards of air quality throughout London.

CCAL is independent of any government funding, has cross-party support and a large number of supporters, both individuals in London and organisations. CCAL provides a channel for both public concern and expert opinion on air pollution on London. This document provides both general and expert comments in response to the consultation.

After accolades for publishing (belatedly) his health study on the mortality impacts of air pollution, the Mayor must stop stumbling backwards and move forward rapidly on air quality.

With many long lead times to implementation, the Mayor must put actions in train within weeks if London is to turn the current prospect of ‘ridicule’ over air quality failings at the London 2012 Olympics into a ‘standing ovation’ for delivering the ‘greenest and most sustainable’ Games. For example, the Mayor should:

1. Launch a major campaign to build public understanding of poor air quality
2. Engage London boroughs in bold, co-ordinated and urgent action to improve air quality
3. Introduce LEZ3 within weeks not months
4. Keep the WEZ
5. Clean up taxis and buses by reducing sharply their harmful emissions by 2012
6. Add one or more additional, inner London low emission zones (or Clean Air Zones) by 2012
7. Remind yourself and others we were promised the ‘greenest and most sustainable Games’
8. Combine targeted local measures at ‘Priority locations’ with substantial structural measures
9. Take action to reduce sharply non-transport emissions
10. Seek additional Government funding but risk accusations of insincerity if WEZ could be removed
11. Establish and fund a ‘London Clean Air Policy Research Centre’.

Further details of our consultation response are set out below, but in brief:

• CCAL does not think the consultation has been adequate because:

i. insufficient information was provided in the consultation document;
ii. although some has since been produced, it is too late for it to inform public comment (CCAL has provided its initial view below); and
iii. vital information has still not been supplied.

CCAL has sought confirmation from TfL that it can publish, on the CCAL website, documents it has received from TfL and the GLA during the consultation process. This confirmation is pending after TfL said it is ‘keen to ensure that any information that may be published is properly contextualised’.

• TfL’s own modelling shows that removal of the WEZ would lead to an unlawful increase in air pollution, inconsistent with EU law.

• Nothing in the draft AQS would compensate for the increased pollution that would result if the WEZ were removed.

• The AQS must included policies and proposals for the achievement of air quality laws.

• There has been no, or no adequate, consideration of the impact of the proposals on particularly vulnerable groups, or minority ethnic groups. An equality impact assessment must be carried out.

For the reasons above, the Mayor should reject the draft AQS and consult again on a version that is ‘fit for purpose’.

Further details of CCAL’s concerns are set out below.   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)

NOTICE: Please note that the main attachments to this Campaign Letter are subject to Transport for London (TfL) copyright unless otherwise shown. TfL has asked CCAL to note that ‘these documents cannot be considered to be current as they were produced in the development of the draft [Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy (MAQS)]. In some cases, further analysis has been undertaken and the information contained in these documents has been superseded by that contained in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy and draft MAQS’. ENDS

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/static/corporate/media/newscentre/archive/5229.html

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 RESPONSE: 28 January 2010

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

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


28 January 2010


Dear Secretary of State

Secretary of State warned of need to take action after hourly limit value for NO2 breached today

Response to consultation on draft Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 and Impact Assessment

Secretary of State reminded he would be in breach of statutory duties if Mayor of London removes WEZ without full and simultaneous offset of air quality impacts

I am writing on behalf of the cross-party Campaign for Clean Air in London (CCAL) to respond to the consultation on the transposition of Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (the Directive) which closes on 29 January 2010. Thank you for the opportunity to do so.

CCAL understands the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) intends to transpose the new Directive into English law under the draft Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 (draft AQSR 2010). The consultation documents can be seen at:

http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/airquality-transposition/index.htm

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

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

Summary

The current consultation takes place against a background of legal action and public concern over the UK’s failure to comply with air pollution deadlines it has known about since 1999. Awareness of the scale of the public health crisis is also spreading rapidly.

As you know, the European Commission launched legal action against the UK in January last year for breaching limit values for dangerous airborne particles (PM10) that entered into force in January 2005. On 11 December 2009, the European Commission rejected the UK’s application for a time extension until 11 June 2011 to comply with these obligations in London. London is the only place in the UK still in breach of the daily limit value for PM10. The government has said it wishes to reapply for a time extension. However, when doing so, the government will need to address a consequence of it changing the monitoring of PM10 (which reduced the number of reported daily exceedances in Marylebone Road last year from 110 to 39 days i.e. just over the legal limit of 35) i.e. that widespread areas of the south east UK are likely to breach the daily limit value during warm years (such as 2003 or 2006). Please see the excellent presentation given by David Green of King’s College London in December 2009 which explains this important change:

http://www.cleanairinlondon.org/_attachments/4426048/CCAL%20080%20D%20Green%20at%20RSC%20December%202009.pdf

Limit values for annual mean and hourly concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) entered into force on 1 January 2010 to protect public health further. With London having the highest mean concentrations of NO2 of any capital city in western, or eastern, Europe, it is shocking but not surprising that London breached - in less than two weeks - the hourly limit value of 18 exceedances in a whole year (in Kensington and Chelsea, Lambeth and Wandsworth). The government’s main monitoring site for London, in Marylebone Road, breached that limit value today for the first time by reporting 25 exceedances in the year to date (after 18 yesterday for the year to date). See:

http://www.londonair.org.uk/london/asp/publicstats.asp?statyear=2010&mapview=NO2b®ion=0&site=MY1&postcode=&la_id=&objective=All

CCAL hereby formally brings the breach of the hourly limit value for NO2 in London to your attention, as the responsible Secretary of State, and requests and requires that you take urgent action as you are required to do to ensure full compliance with this standard. These standards have the same legal force as those for PM10 that you are also required to meet this year.

The primary purpose of this letter is to respond formally to Defra’s consultation on the draft AQSR 2010 and associated Impact Assessment. CCAL has a number of detailed comments on these documents which are set out in later in this letter. However, CCAL’s general impression is that the draft AQSR 2010 have been faithfully transposed except in the most important areas where the government has failed to transpose the most essential elements and/or weakened the wording to make it ambiguous e.g. which pollutants are covered, what standards must be met, where they apply, when they must be met and what happens if a time extension is obtained. Furthermore, the draft AQSR 2010 omit completely the need for penalties that are ‘effective, proportionate and dissuasive’ if the Secretary of State fails to comply fully with his obligations. The Impact Assessment quantifies the risks of long term exposure to particulate air pollution represented by PM2.5 but then fails to accept advice from its own scientific advisory body to include in any such report a wider interval up to 15% (i.e. relative risk 1.15).

In CCAL’s view, these are serious and unacceptable failings which must be addressed before the AQSR 2010 are finalised. The proposed transposition of the Directive into the draft AQSR 2010 does not yet meet the minimum requirements of the Directive.

In CCAL’s considered view, Defra’s assessment of the impacts of transposing the Directive, as set out in the consultation Impact Assessment, is not thoroughly considered. CCAL has therefore provided you with additional information that it thinks must be considered i.e. herein and CCAL’s letter to the Environmental Audit Committee dated 13 December 2009 (attached) (which forms part of this submission).

CCAL wishes separately to bring to your attention that the Mayor of London would put the Secretary of State in breach of his statutory duty (to ensure that the daily limit value for PM10 is not exceeded having been attained in west London) if the Mayor removes the Western Extension of the Congestion Charging Zone (WEZ) without offsetting fully adverse air quality impacts. CCAL’s analysis shows the position very clearly and confirms the situation beyond reasonable doubt.

With the government and the Mayor failing in so many ways to comply with their duties to improve air quality, CCAL hereby requests and requires the government comply immediately and in full with its obligations to protect public health.   more »

CAMPAIGN RESPONSE: 11 January 2010

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

11 January 2010


Dear Mayor Johnson

The draft Transport Strategy is not yet ‘fit for purpose’. The same is true of the Mayor’s draft: Air Quality Strategy; Economic Development Strategy; Health Inequalities Strategy; and London Plan

Mayor’s strategies fail to grasp the magnitude or urgency of the public health crisis caused by poor air quality in London. Mayor is taking ‘one or two steps backwards’ on air quality when ‘one or two bold steps forward’ are required. Mayor would need to be ‘several steps ahead’ before considering, in any way, weakening the WEZ or delaying Phase 3 of the LEZ

Mayor should announce immediately WEZ will remain and Phase 3 of LEZ will go ahead as planned in October 2010 unless a fully offsetting and substantial further package of air quality measures are implemented simultaneously with removal of WEZ and/or delay of Phase 3 of LEZ


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 Transport Strategy (TS) which closes on 12 January 2010. Thank you for the opportunity for do so. The full consultation document can be seen at:

http://mts.tfl.gov.uk/Read-the-strategy/Download-the-full-strategy-(1).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 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

CCAL has responded separately to the Mayor’s draft: Air Quality Strategy (AQS); Economic Development Strategy (EDS); Health Inequalities Strategy (HIS); and London Plan. Those responses are referred to in more detail later in this letter. The various attachments to this letter form an integral part of CCAL’s response to this consultation on the draft TS.

CCAL hopes that the Mayor will give proper consideration to the responses to the consultation on the draft TS, and take into account intervening events (e.g. the recent decision by the European Commission to reject the UK’s application to delay compliance with the limit values for dangerous airborne particles (PM10)), in order to produce a robust and realistic plan for tackling the Capital’s pollution. In the absence of clear action to provide a proper response to the consultation exercise, CCAL reserves the right to launch a challenge in the Administrative court.

Please consider carefully all the above submissions and include all their recommendations in the Mayor’s TS. You will be aware that the Mayor’s strategies must be consistent between one another as well as each being adequate and properly prepared in its own right.

Summary

CCAL has reviewed in detail and responded formally to each of the Mayor’s draft: Air Quality Strategy; Economic Development Strategy; Health Inequalities Strategy; and London Plan. This letter together with its attachments comprises CCAL’s main response to the Mayor’s draft Transport Strategy.

In CCAL’s view, the strategies individually and collectively fail to grasp in their analysis, policies or proposals the magnitude or urgency of the public health crisis caused by poor air quality in London. Furthermore, but particularly the draft AQS and the draft TS, these strategies fail to include an adequate environmental assessment of the likely impact of key measures such as the removal of the Western Extension of the congestion Charging Zone (WEZ) and/or the delay of Phase 3 of the London low emission zone (LEZ). In CCAL’s carefully considered view, therefore, none of the above mentioned strategies are yet ‘fit for purpose’.

CCAL opposes the removal of the WEZ and/or the delay of Phase 3 of the LEZ. CCAL has reached this view inter alia because:

1. the WEZ is a good measure in its own right. While not primarily intended to be a mechanism to reduce harmful emissions, even the Mayor’s own, limited analysis, indicates that air quality would be adversely affected by its removal per se. CCAL considers that the WEZ could be improved by the adoption of dynamic road pricing, although this seems to have been ruled out by the Mayor;

2. Phase 3 of the LEZ is a good measure in its own right. As a mechanism intended to tackle directly harmful emissions, even the Mayor’s own, limited analysis, indicates that air quality would be adversely affected by its removal per se. In fact, earlier analysis by TfL suggested that Phase 3 of the LEZ would protect over 15% of those worst affected by poor air quality. CCAL considers it could be improved by the introduction and faster tightening of one or more additional inner LEZs combined perhaps with the slower (all other things being equal) tightening of the current outer LEZ;

3. CCAL has seen no credible package of mitigation measures to ameliorate the impact on air quality of the removal of the WEZ and/or Phase 3 of the LEZ. Those that are included are largely unspecified, unquantified, untested and likely to be small or even de minimus in effect;

4. the draft TS fails to address the scale or urgency of the air quality challenges in London and includes no adequate assessment of the environmental impact of removing the WEZ or delaying Phase 3 of the LEZ. CCAL finds it extraordinary that no modeling of air pollutant concentrations is included at this stage of the consultation process;

5. after failing to find details of local air pollution concentrations, CCAL has undertaken its own analysis and produced persuasive evidence that the daily limit value for PM10 would be breached in west London (even in a wet, mild year) if the WEZ is removed in the manner proposed. Such an event would put the Secretary of State (SOS) for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) in breach of his statutory duty to ensure limit values are not exceeded once attained. CCAL has copied this letter therefore to the SOS effectively putting him on notice, again, of this issue; and

6. in CCAL’s view, the Mayor is taking ‘one or two steps backwards’ on air quality when ‘one or two bold steps forward’ are required. Mayor would need to be ‘several steps ahead’ before considering, in any way, weakening the WEZ or delaying Phase 3 of the LEZ.

With the Mayor’s strategies and thinking seemingly still so far adrift from public health and legal realities, they clearly require substantial reworking and fresh public consultation(s). It seems most unlikely therefore that the Mayor and/or Transport for London (TfL) will be able to complete the necessary steps to delay Phase 3 of the LEZ by October 2010 and/or the remove the WEZ by the end of 2010.

CCAL therefore urges the Mayor to announce immediately that the WEZ will remain and Phase 3 of the LEZ will go ahead as planned in October 2010 unless a fully offsetting and substantial further package of air quality improvements are implemented simultaneously with the removal of the WEZ and/or the delay of Phase 3 of the LEZ. An expeditiously executed ‘handbrake turn’ now by the Mayor is better than last minute chaos and confusion.

In CCAL’s view, the Mayor cannot keep taking adverse decisions and expect them not to have consequences when long standing deadlines requiring action from him start to ‘bite’. London needs urgently a major package of systematic measures to improve air quality in a sustainable manner.   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 LETTER: 20 September 2009

Mayor Johnson urged to apply Precautionary Principle for Air Quality Strategy assuming 6,300 to 7,900 premature deaths in London in 2005 due to dangerous airborne particles

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

By email: mayor@london.gov.uk

20 September 2009

Dear Mayor Johnson

Government releases previously unpublished spreadsheets for calculating premature deaths due to air pollution in London after formal information request from ‘Clean Air in London’ (CCAL)

Using government spreadsheets and its current risk figures indicates there were around 5,000 premature deaths in London in 2005 due to dangerous airborne particles (PM10) alone

CCAL urges Mayor Johnson to apply the Precautionary Principle when developing his Air Quality Strategy and accept government recommendations for sensitivity analyses which suggest there may have been some 6,300 to 7,900 premature deaths in London in 2005 due to PM10 alone

CCAL calls for a radical overhaul of guidance from the Health and Safety Executive after a long-serving London policeman describes air pollution on a ‘fixed post’ that made him ‘rasp’

I am writing on behalf of the Campaign for Clean Air in London (CCAL) to urge you to take full and appropriate account of the most up-to-date scientific evidence on the health impact of poor air quality and to apply the Precautionary Principle in developing your forthcoming Air Quality Strategy.

Many people have aided CCAL in understanding the issues set out in the letter. CCAL thanks them all.

Summary

Ministers tend to say: air quality is good across 99% of the UK’s landmass; has improved a lot since 1990; that people lose on average a maximum of seven to eight months of their lives due to the problem; and the alert bands show air pollution as being mostly ‘low’ or ‘moderate’.

The real picture is quite different. No-one lives in our fields and mountains; they live alongside the 1,117 kilometres of roads in London (2,496 kilometres nationally) [Note 2] forecast by the government to breach legal standards for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in 2010. Air quality has improved since 1990 but the level of dangerous airborne particles (PM10) in London has increased at a mean rate of around 0.4% per year since the late 1990’s despite public health laws requiring sharp reductions [Note 3]. London has the highest annual mean concentrations of NO2 of any capital city in western (or eastern) Europe. Rather than talk abstractly about an average reduction in life expectancy across 60,975,000 people, Ministers should warn people that the amount of time lost per statistical victim due to dangerous airborne particles may be 9.8 years [Note 4]. Air quality can be in the 'low' band all year round but still breach European Union (EU) limit values.

Embarrassment at the London 2012 Olympics over unlimited fines and legal action to enforce air quality laws will be outweighed by the government’s failure to protect lives.

CCAL therefore wrote to the Secretary of State for Health in a letter dated 19 April 2009 to ask the Department of Health (DoH): for its urgent assistance to clarify the full extent of the health impact of poor air quality in Greater London; and to commit to a major public information programme to communicate updated similar information at least annually in future.

In a reply from the DoH (attached as Appendix One) and in subsequent meetings with DoH executives and others, CCAL has obtained a more detailed understanding of the health impacts of poor air quality in London. CCAL has also obtained a response from the Department from Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) under the Environmental Impact Regulations 2004 (EIR) that discloses two previously unpublished spreadsheets used by the government to calculate premature deaths in London due to poor air quality (the letter and spreadsheets are attached). In addition, the Committee on Medical Effects of Air Pollution (COMEAP) published, in June 2009, its final report titled ‘Long Term Exposure to Air Pollution: Effect on Mortality’.

As a result of this further work, CCAL has become more concerned even than previously about the health impact of air pollution on Londoners. Assuming that London suffers no worse than average UK population-weighted levels of fine particles (PM2.5) CCAL estimates, from information in the government’s Air Quality Strategy 2007, that some 3,100 people died prematurely (i.e. Attributable Deaths) in London in 2005. This number compares with that calculated by CCAL earlier this year of around 2,900 from the European Environment Agency’s report on PM10. Using COMEAP’s currently recommended coefficient in the government spreadsheet indicates some 5,000 premature deaths in London in 2005 due to long-term exposure to PM10 alone compared to the 1,031 premature deaths from short-term only air pollution which has been referred to in London for several years. CCAL is arranging to meet government officials to check this result.

Please note that the need for scientists to have exceptionally high standards of proof means that it has taken some 15 years to determine that long-term exposure to airborne particles has some 10 times greater impact on mortality (i.e. deaths) than short-term exposure.

Assuming again that London suffers no worse than average UK population-weighted levels of PM2.5, and applying the Precautionary Principle and COMEAP’s recommendation to use a wider interval of relative risk in any report on quantification of risks from long term exposure to particulate air pollution represented by PM2.5, suggests that between 6,300 and 7,900 people may have died prematurely in London in 2005 due to PM2.5 (and therefore PM10).

Action 1: CCAL urges you, as Mayor of London, to take full account of this latest information in your forthcoming Air Quality Strategy and to address the other actions listed in this letter. Radical and urgent action is needed now to reduce sharply levels of dangerous airborne particles (PM2.5 and PM10) and other pollutants (e.g. NO2) in London.

Notes for Summary:

1. PM10 is particulate matter (or dangerous airborne particles) with an aerodynamic diameter of up to 10 microns (one-millionth of a metre), i.e. fine (PM2.5) and coarse (PM10 minus PM2.5) PM fractions together.

2. Page 6 of Defra’s ‘UK Approach to its Application for Time Extension Notification to Nitrogen Dioxide Limit Value deadline’. See

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/airquality/panels/forum/documents/aq-forum-draft-no2-approach-paper0902.pdf

3. Page 5 of King’s College London, London Air Quality Network report ‘Air quality in London, Report 14, 2006-7’

http://www.londonair.org.uk/london/reports/AirqualityinLondon2006-2007.pdf

4. Paragraph 3 of discussion section of ‘Assessment of Deaths Attributable to Air Pollution’ by Künzli et al 2001. See:

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/153/11/1050   more »

CAMPAIGN LETTER: 4 May 2009

Commissioner Dimas
European Commissioner for the Environment
Environment Directorate-General
200, Rue de la Roi
(BERL 11/112)
1049 – Brussels
Belgium

By email and registered post: stavros.dimas@ec.europa.eu

4 May 2009

Dear Commissioner Dimas

European Commission urged to send final written warning to United Kingdom over dangerous airborne particles (PM10)

I am writing to you on behalf of the Campaign for Clean Air in London (CCAL) to urge the European Commission (the Commission) to send the United Kingdom (UK) a Reasoned Opinion (i.e. final written warning) for failing to comply with the European Union’s (EU’s) standard for dangerous airborne particles known as PM10.

Such action would continue the infringement action launched by the Commission on 29 January 2009. The Commission’s press release about the first stage of legal action can be seen at:

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/174&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

CCAL hopes that others will support its call for prompt further legal action against the UK.

‘Premature deaths’ and ‘amount of time lost per statistical victim’

Underlying all CCAL’s concerns about poor air quality is its impact on the health of people.

In this regard, Londoners have been told for several years that dangerous airborne particles resulted in some 1,031 premature deaths in London in 2005. The latest European Environment Agency report (published on 24 March 2009), titled ‘Spatial assessment of PM10 and ozone concentrations in Europe (2005)’, indicated that some 650 people per million people of 30 years of age and older may have died from PM10 in the UK in 2005. This would represent some 2,900 people in London (based on London’s age profile and assuming conservatively that it has average UK air quality). Related research by Kunzli et al (2000) suggests that the amount of time lost per statistical victim may by 9.8 years equating to a change in life expectancy of 0.6 years (7.2 months) in the total population.

The UK’s National Air Quality Strategy published in 2007 made no reference to premature deaths or the amount of time lost per statistical victim after earlier official publications had made such references. Instead the national strategy referred only to an estimated reduction in life expectancy of every person in the UK of an average of 7-8 months with an equivalent health cost of up to £20 billion each year.

CCAL has written therefore to the Secretary of State for Health asking the Department of Health: for urgent assistance to clarify the full extent of the health impact of poor air quality in Greater London; and to commit to a major public information programme to communicate updated similar information at least annually in future.

Response please: CCAL wishes to bring to your attention now the urgent need for greater clarity on the true health impact of poor air quality in London. CCAL may write to you again on this subject, depending on the reply it receives from the Secretary of State for Health, but any clarification you can provide now on the relevance and/or importance of ‘premature deaths’ and ‘amount of time lost per statistical victim’ as meaningful measures of the impact of poor air quality would be much appreciated. In CCAL’s view, the use of an average change in life expectancy across the total population creates the impression (wrongly) that the health impact of poor air quality is small.   more »

CAMPAIGN LETTER: 19 April 2009

The Rt. Hon. Alan Johnson MP
Secretary of State for Health
Department of Health
Richmond House
79 Whitehall
London SW1A 2NS

By registered post

19 April 2009


Dear Secretary of State

What is the real health impact of poor air quality in Greater London?

Latest research suggests some 2,900* people aged 30 or over may die prematurely per annum from dangerous airborne particles (PM10) in Greater London alone: nearly three times earlier estimates

Research suggests amount of time lost, per statistical victim, may be 9.8 years equating to an average change in life expectancy of approximately 0.6 years (7.2 months) in the total population

This letter is sent on behalf of the Campaign for Clean Air in London (CCAL). Details of our Mission and Supporters can be seen at www.cleanairinlondon.org.

Summary

The primary purpose of this letter is to ask the Department of Health (DoH): for its urgent assistance to clarify the full extent of the health impact of poor air quality in Greater London; and to commit to a major public information programme to communicate updated similar information at least annually in future.

On 24 March 2009, the European Environment Agency published a report titled ‘Spatial assessment of PM10 and ozone concentrations in Europe (2005)’ (the EEA Report) from which CCAL calculates there were some 2,905 premature deaths attributable to dangerous airborne particles (PM10) among adults of 30 years of age and older in Greater London in 2005. The EEA Report (5.2 MB) can be downloaded at:

http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/spatial-assessment-of-pm10-and-ozone-concentrations-in-europe-2005-1

Furthermore, some of the medical research to which the EEA refers (Kunzli et al, 2000), suggests that the amount of time lost per statistical victim may be 9.8 years equating to a change in life expectancy of approximately 0.6 years (7.2 months) in the total population.

This new information is particularly worrying given that: the only previous premature death figure for London seen by CCAL was 1,031 premature deaths from PM10 in total in 2005; and the government’s Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in 2007 (AQS 2007) appears to have omitted references to premature deaths (when earlier government-sponsored publications had included them) and years of life lost. The AQS 2007 stated simply ‘estimated to reduce life expectancy of every person in the UK by an average of 7-8 months with an equivalent health cost of up to £20 billion each year’.

CCAL is deeply concerned that the public health impact of poor air quality in Greater London, which is recognised – including by the government – to be the worst in the United Kingdom (UK), may be much worse than earlier research showed.

In addition, why have major public information campaigns been launched on alcohol abuse, obesity, road traffic accidents and smoking – and not on poor air quality – when poor air quality is such a major killer? Similarly, why is there no-one seemingly from the DoH commenting regularly in the media on the importance of major research into the health impacts of poor air quality whenever it appears?

In CCAL’s view, it is essential that people are given an opportunity to understand the full extent and seriousness of the air quality problem and the part they can play in improving the situation.

* CCAL calculation based on latest European Environment Agency Report; Greater London assumed to have no worse than average UK exposure to PM10; and ONS population estimates for mid-2007.   more »

CAMPAIGN RESPONSE: 22 February 2009

Consultation on the draft UK notification to the European Commission to secure additional time to meet the limit values for particulate matter for certain zones/agglomerations in accordance with the Council Directive 2008/50/EC on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe

UK fails to satisfy in London any of the three conditions for a time extension to comply with legal standards for dangerous airborne particles (PM10)

European Commission should ‘throw the rule book’ at the UK, and reject its application, unless the UK submits a wholly convincing plan to improve air quality in London

London needs one or more additional inner low emission zones implemented by early 2010 backed by a fully funded government ‘green deal’

The purpose of this letter is to respond on behalf of the Campaign for Clean Air in London (CCAL) to the consultation (the Consultation) being carried out by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) on the draft United Kingdom (UK) notification to the European Commission (the Commission) to secure additional time to meet the limit values for particulate matter (PM10) for certain zones/agglomerations in accordance with the Council Directive 2008/50/EC on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (the new AQ Directive). The consultation documents can be found at:

http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/air-quality/index.htm

This letter is addressed jointly to the Secretary of State for Transport because CCAL understands that the Department for Transport (DfT) has joint responsibility with Defra for the UK meeting its legal obligations in respect of air quality.

The Prime Minister has been copied, given the cross-departmental issues raised, and all London’s MEPs and others have been copied given that the Commission has already started legal action against the UK for failing to notify a time extension by the deadline set by the Commission of 31 October 2008.

As you know, only the UK, Cyprus, Estonia, Portugal, Slovenia and Sweden out of some 24 countries have failed so far to submit any time extension notification plans to the Commission.

Summary

In CCAL’s carefully considered view, the UK does not satisfy either of the pre-conditions for it to obtain a time extension to comply with limit values for PM10.

In particular, the UK fails to pass either the ‘First condition’ – measures to achieve compliance by the initial attainment date; or the ‘Specific condition for PM10’ – site-specific dispersion characteristics, adverse climatic conditions or transboundary contributions. Both of these pre-conditions must be met if the UK is to obtain a time extension to comply with limit values for PM10.

CCAL would need to be completely wrong on every point made in this letter in connection with the above pre-conditions if the UK is to be eligible for a time extension to comply with limit values for PM10. This seems highly unlikely given that the questions are ones of fact.

Furthermore the UK has made no reasonable effort yet to satisfy the ‘Second condition’ – measures to achieve compliance before the new deadline. It has not been helped in this regard by: its reliance on measures that the Mayor of London says he plans to scrap or suspend; its vague words about committing to work with the Mayor of London; and/or its obvious non-compliance over at least part of the London road network even by 2011 (i.e. six kilometres or is it 12 kilometres with modeling errors?).

CCAL will therefore urge the Commission to ‘throw the rule book’ at the UK and reject its time extension notification (TEN) for failing to meet the conditions necessary for such a time extension unless the UK submits a wholly convincing and timely plan by the deadline set by the first written warning (i.e. Letter of Formal Notice). To be wholly convincing, such a plan must be backed by all necessary funding and immediate action to ensure that limit values for PM10 will be complied with sustainably throughout London by no later than 11 June 2011.

CCAL will urge the Commission to progress vigorously legal action, in parallel with any consideration of a belated TEN from the UK, against the UK and the five other Member States that failed to submit a TEN by the Commission’s deadline of 31 October 2008. These countries are clearly in need of ‘encouragement’. Otherwise, what incentive would there be in future for any country to comply within the first six months of a deadline set by the Commission? CCAL understands that the fines against the UK could total £300 million just in respect of PM10. The Commission is not on some ‘frolic’: all the fault sits at the government’s feet after more than 10 years of inaction and disregard for deadlines and/or repeated warnings.

CCAL urges the government to learn now from its serious failings to comply with limit values for PM10 – including the current difficulties it faces in applying for a time extension – and to propose and implement rapidly plans to comply fully with limit values for NO2 by January 2010.

In CCAL’s carefully considered view, the UK is likely currently to miss - by a large margin - not just the limit values for NO2 due to be met since 1999 by January 2010 but also the limit value plus margin of tolerance which must not be exceeded if the time extension provisions are to be used. CCAL considers currently therefore that the UK should not waste everyone’s time by submitting a TEN on NO2 – it should instead focus all its energies on complying urgently with the limit values for NO2 (as it will need to do when legal action is surely launched against it). The UK needs a convincing action plan for NO2 now.

Finally, the UK seems to be one of the least compliant countries and worst ‘free-riders’ in the whole of Europe when it comes to complying with air pollution legislation. We need urgent and energetic cross-departmental action, lead personally by the Prime Minister, if sustainability issues are to be addressed holistically.   more »

CAMPAIGN LETTER: 11 January 2009

Darren Johnson AM
Chair
Environment Committee
London Assembly
City Hall
The Queen’s Walk
London SE1 2AA

11 January 2009

Dear Darren

Investigation by the Environment Committee of the London Assembly into air quality up to 2012 - The UK's choice: 'Ridicule for breaching air quality laws every year'; or a 'Standing ovation for showing the world how to address air pollution and sustainability issues'

I am writing on behalf of the Campaign for Clean Air in London (CCAL) to submit evidence to the Environment Committee of the London Assembly (LAEC) as part of its forthcoming investigation into air quality in London. All members of the LAEC are copied on this letter.

Summary

The LAEC’s investigation is taking place in the right place at the right time. Indeed, there is a once in a lifetime opportunity to:

• improve London’s air quality for the first time in 10 years;
• show those involved in long term planning for climate change what it takes, in practice, to reduce air pollution (i.e. a mixture of technology, behavioural change and political will);
• build upon a desire for a step change in road pricing (through ‘tag and beacon’ or its equivalent); and
• deliver a magnificent London 2012 Summer Olympics and Paralympic Games with a valuable lasting legacy.

All it would take to achieve this goal is a commitment from the Prime Minister that the government will comply fully with [health based] air quality laws that is followed by determined action. Mayor Johnson too will need to play his part since, while not having [today] a legal duty to ensure limit values are achieved, he holds the key to deliver most of the solutions. Success with leaded petrol, the ozone layer and acid rain show what can be achieved if sufficient political will exists.

Please take this opportunity to press for such a commitment from the Prime Minister (and others). Please back such a call with clear recommendations from the LAEC supporting the most obvious solutions (e.g. one or more additional inner low emission zones) and highlight key issues (e.g. the monitoring of ‘PM2.5’).

With impetus from the LAEC and others on air quality, London could achieve major long term environmental, social and economic benefits and establish itself firmly as the world’s leading city.   more »

CAMPAIGN LETTER: 1 November 2008

Commissioner Dimas
Commissioner for Environment
Environment Directorate-General
European Commission
B-1049 Brussels

By registered post and email: stavros.dimas@ec.europa.eu

1 November 2008

Dear Commissioner Dimas

Did the UK meet the European Commission’s deadline of 31 October to notify a request for a time extension to comply with European Union air quality laws for particulate matter (PM10)?

Baroness Gardner will ask this question in the House of Lords on Tuesday 4 November 2008

The Campaign for Clean Air in London urges the European Commission to launch legal action against the UK now on PM10 pollution and in early 2009 on nitrogen dioxide (NO2) pollution

‘The London Matrix’: Air quality or climate change, it’s about air emission reduction deadlines

Summary

I am writing to you on behalf of the Campaign for Clean Air in London (CCAL) on two matters.

First, please will you confirm whether the United Kingdom (UK) notified fully the European Commission (Commission) by its deadline of 31 October 2008 of a request for a time extension to comply with European Union (EU) air quality laws for particulate matter (PM10) in the manner requested by the Commission in its press release dated 8 July 2008. CCAL understands that the UK government intended to miss that deadline. A link to the Commission’s announcement is shown below:

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/08/1112&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

To underline the significance of this deadline, Baroness Gardner of Parkes has lodged a Topical Question to be answered in the House of Lords shortly after 2.45 pm on Tuesday 4 November. It reads:

Baroness Gardner of Parkes to ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they requested by 31 October a derogation from the European air quality directive for particulate matter in order to avoid legal action for potential breach of the limits in 2005, 2006 and 2007.

Baroness Gardner highlighted the importance of meeting air quality deadlines also in the House of Lords on 9 October 2007. You can see the full text of that debate via the link below:

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2007-10-09a.117.0&s=speaker%3A13304#g117.3

CCAL has today submitted a Freedom of Information Request/Environmental Information Request to the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) asking it to provide similar information.

Second, if the UK failed to comply fully with the Commission’s request for information by the above deadline, as CCAL suspects, CCAL urges the Commission to launch by 30 November 2008 robust legal action against the UK for breaching EU air quality limit values (Limit Values) for PM10 in 2005, 2006 and/or 2007 as it has been entitled to do for some time.

In CCAL’s carefully considered view, Europe is today at a crossroads in terms of its ability (or failure) to tackle air pollution. This is because:

• the Limit Values for PM10 have been due, since 1999 legislation, to be complied with by January 2005;

• the new EU directive on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (the new AQ Directive) entered into force on 11 June 2008 with specific provisions to tackle this problem;

• the Limit Values for PM10 (and NO2) are the bare minimum needed to protect human health and the environment. Particulate matter air pollution alone causes some 350,000 deaths per annum now across Europe;

• the Commission set a reasonable deadline for notifying requests for time extensions for PM10;

• Europe’s credibility at reducing air pollution emissions is at stake now;

• the UK government is ‘playing games’ with the Commission;

• leading UK NGOs have called for the government to comply fully with air quality laws; and

• last but not least, the Commission said on 8 July 2008 that legal action would follow if any Member State did not submit a notification for a time extension by the deadline and so it must.

Please therefore enforce air quality laws now and send a message to those attending the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Poznan from 1 to 12 December that Europe is serious about complying with the environmental obligations that it sets. Lack of action before then would lead to suspicions that no enforcement action on air pollution is likely ever in Europe. If air pollution laws are not going to be complied with and/or enforced, it is better not to have them in the first place. This is a very serious message for those going to Poznan.

1 November 2008 will be remembered as the time when Europe showed it had the political will to tackle its toughest air pollution problems or failed to do so.   more »

CAMPAIGN RESPONSE: 25 October 2008

Consultation responses required by 28 October 2008

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

The Rt. Hon. Geoff Hoon MP
Secretary of State
Department for Transport
Great Minster House
76 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DR

By email to: euairquality@defra.gsi.gov.uk

25 October 2008

Dear Secretaries of State for Defra and DfT (and Defra consultation team),

Consultation on UK report regarding plans and programmes to meet EU air quality limit values for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) (reporting year 2006)

Government is making no meaningful effort to comply with limit values for NO2 by January 2010 and has no date planned for eventual compliance

Government has no contingency plans to address time extension obligations that will arise under the new Air Quality Directive if it breaches limit values for NO2 in 2010. For example, airports are not mentioned in the whole draft report

Government is seeking to comply ‘selectively’ with reporting timetables

The purpose of this letter is to respond on behalf of the Campaign for Clean Air in London (CCAL) to the consultation being carried out by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) on the United Kingdom (UK) and Devolved Administrations’ draft report on plans and programmes to meet European Union (EU) ambient air quality limit values (limit values) for nitrogen dioxide (NO2). The consultation documents can be found at:

http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/air-limitvalues2006/index.htm

The letter is addressed jointly to the Secretary of State for Transport because CCAL understands that the Department for Transport (DfT) has joint responsibility for the UK meeting its legal obligations in respect of air quality.

The Prime Minister has been copied, given the cross-departmental issues raised and all London’s MEPs and others have been copied given the imminence of the related deadline of 31 October 2008 for notifying requests to the European Commission (the Commission) for time extensions to meet the corresponding limit values for PM10.

Summary

The Campaign for Clean Air in London notes the obligation under EU legislation referred to in the consultation document for the government to produce plans and programmes to ensure compliance with the limit values “within the required timescale”. CCAL considers the last few words unnecessarily vague since the obligations must be met by January 2010 (under 1999 legislation) or January 2015 (if the UK is granted a conditional time extension under the new EU Directive on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (the new AQ Directive) that entered into force on 11 June 2008).

CCAL has three main concerns with the draft report which is the subject of this consultation. First, it does not show or refer to any expected date by which the UK will ensure compliance with either of the limit values for NO2. Second, the plans and programmes currently proposed together are clearly insufficient to achieve the limit values for NO2 or indeed to make any reasonable effort to do so by the required date of January 2010 (or January 2015). Third, the report includes no contingency plans to comply with the time extension obligations for NO2 under the new legal regime if the UK fails to meet the limit values for NO2 by January 2010 (as currently seems likely) e.g. Article 22 paragraph 3 and/or the January 2015 deadline. CCAL is disappointed that the first two points have not been addressed in the current report when it raised them in the identical consultation some 12 months ago.

In CCAL’s view, the report does not meet the requirements of Annex IV of the relevant EU Directive. CCAL is therefore copying this letter to Commissioner Dimas and urging him please to reject the UK’s report and to commence necessary enforcement action against the UK for failing to meet its reporting requirements - unless these points are addressed fully in the submission as required by 31 December 2008.

In CCAL’s view, the Commission could commence legal action against the UK for breaching limit values for NO2 as soon as there is sufficient evidence that breaches of the hourly limit value have occurred. Results from 2008 indicate that this could happen as early as 31 January 2010.   more »

CAMPAIGN RESPONSE: 18 October 2008

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

Taxi and PHV Licensing Inspection Consultation
Public Carriage Office (PCO)
15 Penton Street
Islington
London N1 9PU

By email: PCO.Consultation@tfl.gov.uk and mayor@london.gov.uk

18 October 2008

Dear Mayor Johnson and the PCO,

Consultation on Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Licensing Inspections

‘Encourage’ taxi drivers to reduce harmful emissions from Taxis and PHVs

This response to Transport for London’s (TfL’s) public Consultation on Future Arrangements for Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle (PHV) Licensing Inspections, which is due to close on 24 October 2008, is sent on behalf of the Campaign for Clean Air in London (CCAL). Refer to:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/businessandpartners/taxisandprivatehire/8832.aspx

Taxis are the most polluting form of road traffic in Central London

According to the London Atmospheric Emissions Inventory 2003 (LAEI), taxis are forecast to contribute some 36.5% of particulate matter (PM10) and 24.6% of nitrogen oxides (NOx) from road traffic in Central London in 2010. See pages 78 and 79 of the relevant report:

http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/environment/air_quality/docs/laei_2003.pdf

Page 4 of the same report makes clear that road traffic is forecast to be the major source of NOx (36%) and PM10 (65%) emissions in the LAEI area in 2010. This means that taxis are the most polluting sub-category of the most polluting emissions category in London.

The consultation document states that only 62% of vehicles passed first time the taxi mid-year inspections in the first six months since their introduction in October 2007. Vehicles failed for a variety of reasons, primarily due to emissions test and vehicle suspension systems, with a wide variety of other causes. CCAL understands that 2,389 taxis failed pollution tests and 513 had brake problems in the past year.

This means that taxis have been contributing unnecessarily to pollution levels in London.

CCAL considers therefore that the proposal to abolish or weaken the current regime of taxi mid-year inspections cannot be justified on the basis of the facts or proposals presented by TfL. CCAL urges Mayor Johnson and the PCO instead to strengthen, rather than weaken, emission control measures for London’s Taxis and PHVs.

The Mayor has a duty to ‘work towards’ Limit Values

The Mayor of London has a statutory duty to ‘work towards’ the Limit Values for particulate matter (PM10) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). In CCAL’s view, Mayor Johnson would breach this statutory duty if taxi mid-year inspections were removed without fully, directly and robust offsetting measures being in full operation. CCAL notes that no such measures are currently proposed.

Principles to adopt in reducing pollution from Taxis and PHVs

CCAL considers that the following principles should be considered as a package as Mayor Johnson and the PCO consider how best to deliver a sharp reduction in harmful emissions from Taxis and PHVs.

1. Taxis and PHVs provide a vital service: Please take full account of the importance of the public service provided by Taxis and PHVs.

2. The polluter must pay: The polluter must pay the full environmental cost of his/her actions. In this case, the polluter is the user of the service i.e. the passenger. Please raise fares therefore to cover the cost of necessary action to reduce sharply harmful emissions from Taxis and PHVs. CCAL would support fare rises to compensate fully operators for the ‘opportunity cost’ of a Taxi or PHV being off the road for testing.

3. Euro IV or better: Taxis should be required to meet no less than Euro IV engine emissions standards for particulate matter and NOx by the earliest possible time. Euro IV engine emission standards are, in general, half as polluting as the current Euro III engine emission standards. CCAL encourages the government (copied) to offer massive incentives to accelerate the adoption, at least, of such standards by 2010. Low emission taxis would presumably exceed such standards.

4. PHVs must meet or exceed Taxi emission standards in the most polluted areas: All PHVs carrying fare paying passengers in the most polluted parts of London should be required at least to match the highest emissions standards applying to Taxis e.g. currently Euro III or better. This could be implemented through the use of colour-coded stickers with one colour allowing say London-wide access for PHVs and another prohibiting the most polluting PHVs from the most polluted parts of London. CCAL would support measures to ban older diesel-engined PHV’s from the most polluted parts of Central London.

5. Apply Taxi testing standards to PHVs: PHVs should be subject to mid-year, full year and spot check inspections in the same way that Taxis are. These should replace MOT only inspections. They should be set at the ‘higher emissions standards’ applicable to either.

6. Effective enforcement is essential: Effective enforcement must play an important part in regulating Taxis and PHV. In CCAL’s view, TfL’s facts show that taxi mid-year inspections are currently essential. If first time pass rates for taxi mid-year, full year and spot check inspections indicate in future that there is a very high level of day to day compliance with emission standards (say 90-95%), CCAL would support then a trial of reverting to annual inspections.

7. Systemic solutions: Such a low first time pass rate indicates that there is likely to be a systemic problem with compliance with emissions standards. What is the cause of this serious problem and what will be done about it and when? With Taxi and PHV drivers amongst the most exposed to harmful air pollution, the majority of them should welcome (at least in private) tighter emission standards paid for (rightly) by their passengers. A systemic problem must be addressed through systemic action.

8. Taxi Emissions Strategy: It is essential that an ambitious new Taxi Emissions Strategy is put in place within weeks to succeed that which expired on 30 June 2008.

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

In CCAL’s view it is essential that measures are included within this Strategy that take account fully of the need to comply with air quality laws. Such a Strategy should address fully all the principles outlined above.

Response to Consultation Options

These responses must be considered in conjunction with the rest of this submission.

In respect of the current, narrow, consultation Options, CCAL has the following responses.

Option 1 Oppose.

By TfL’s own admission this Option could result in ‘higher levels of pollution’ [from the most polluting form of road traffic in the most polluted areas] with no effective offsetting mechanism(s) proposed.

Option 2 Oppose.

The positive and negative incentives proposed would not necessarily ensure that ‘vehicles are well maintained at all times’ as TfL suggests. Rather they may simply encourage unofficial checks immediately before formal testing!

Option 3 Oppose.

As TfL states, ‘vehicle age is not necessarily an indicator of the standard of maintenance or state of repair’.

None of the above Options seems likely to achieve the third of the main aims of the consultation i.e. ‘To simplify arrangements and reduce the administrative burden on owners without compromising safety standards or reducing the overall condition of licensed vehicles throughout the annual licensing cycle’.

CCAL considers that the consultation is biased towards removing mid-year inspections since all Options put forward would represent a weakening of the current regime and none would tighten the existing regime as seems needed.

CCAL considers that TfL’s consultation is set too narrowly to consider just the need to ‘allow TfL to cover its costs and safeguard London’s travelling public’. What about the health of hundreds of thousands of Londoners who are exposed to levels of air pollution that are well in excess of the maximum levels recommended by the World Health Organisation?

CCAL is concerned that Mayor Johnson does not seem to appreciate yet the scale and urgency of the action he needs to take if air quality laws are to be complied with in London. CCAL would be pleased therefore to meet Mayor Johnson and/or his advisers to discuss these proposals as proposed in his letter dated 31 July 2008.

Please confirm receipt of this letter.

With best wishes.

Yours sincerely


Simon Birkett

Principal Contact
Campaign for Clean Air in London

By hand: Winston Fletcher, Chair, The Knightsbridge Association
Carol Seymour-Newton, Honorary Secretary, The Knightsbridge Association

Cc:
The Rt. Hon. Hilary Benn MP, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
The Rt. Geoff Hoon MP, Secretary of State for Transport
Lord Hunt, Minister for Air Quality
Sir Simon Milton, Deputy Mayor
ORGANISATIONS
Helen Ainsworth, EU and International Air Quality, Defra
Jenny Bates, London Regional Campaigns Co-ordinator, Friends of the Earth
Patricia Brown, Chief Executive, Central London Partnership
Simon Davies, Department for Transport
Nick Fairholm, Transport for London
Tim Hockney, Executive Director, London First
Professor Frank Kelly, Kings College London
Sarah Legge, GLA Principal Policy Adviser – Air Quality
Blake Ludwig, Campaign Director, Alliance Against Urban 4x4s
Professor Bob Maynard, Health Protection Agency
Philip Mulligan, Chief Executive, Environmental Protection UK
Derek Picot, Chairman, The Knightsbridge Business Group
Dragomira Raeva, EU Policy Unit, European Environmental Bureau
Dr Martin Williams, Head of Air Quality and Industrial Pollution Programme, Defra
Tim Williamson, National Air Quality Assessment, Defra
LEADING POLITICIANS
John Bowis MEP, Conservative
Jean Lambert MEP, Green
Baroness Ludford MEP, Liberal Democrat
Claude Moraes MEP, Labour
Richard Barnes AM, Statutory Deputy Mayor and Leader of the Conservative Group
Len Duvall AM, Leader of the Labour Group, London Assembly
Darren Johnson AM, Green, Chair of the Transport and Environment Committee
Mike Tuffrey AM, Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group, London Assembly
Valerie Shawcross AM, Chair of the Transport Committee, London Assembly
Councillor Colin Barrow, Leader of the Council, City of Westminster
Councillor Merrick Cockell, Leader of Kensington and Chelsea Council   more »

CAMPAIGN RESPONSE: 27 September 2008

Councillor Robert Davis DL
Deputy Leader of Westminster City Council
Cabinet Member for Built Environment
City of Westminster
P.O. Box 240
Westminster City Hall
64 Victoria Street
London SW1E 6QP

For the attention of Nina Miles 27 September 2008

By email to: airqualitystrategy@westminster.gov.uk

Dear Councillor Davis and Nina Miles

Developing a new Air Quality Strategy and Action Plan

The strategy needs a clear vision – backed by measurable objectives - and must recognise the urgency and major work needed for London to comply, belatedly, with air quality laws

This response to the City of Westminster’s (WCC’s) consultation on ‘Developing a new Air Quality Strategy (AQS) and Action Plan’, which closes on 30 September 2008, is sent on behalf of the Campaign for Clean Air in London (CCAL).

http://www.westminster.gov.uk/environment/pollution/airpollution/strategy.cfm

This response follows an excellent meeting of the Westminster Amenity Society Forum (WASF) earlier this week, at which CCAL thanked WCC, and Nina Miles in particular, for the excellent work done to date in preparing this initial consultation document.

CCAL is supported by all amenity societies that are members of WASF any of whom may wish to make separate additional submissions to WCC on the AQS.

The Campaign for Clean Air in London

CCAL has only one aim which is to achieve urgently and sustainably at least World Health Organisation (WHO) recommended standards of air quality throughout London. Our immediate priority is to ensure that air quality laws, based on WHO recommendations for particulate matter (so called PM10) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2), established by the new European Union directive on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (the AQ Directive) are rigorously enforced in each of the next four years leading up to the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

CCAL has received support from Mayor Johnson, leading politicians from the four main political parties in London as well as leading business and community groups including the Central London Partnership, London First and The Knightsbridge Business Group. We have also received a pledge of support from Environmental Protection UK (formerly the National Society for Clean Air and Environmental Protection).

Comments on the draft AQS

CCAL’s key comments are:

1. Air quality is the top environmental concern for WCC’s residents: CCAL was not surprised to see on page 7 that the highest number (35%) of respondents to a recent survey undertaken by WCC to determine residents’ attitudes to noise, found that poor air quality topped the list of problems that personally affected them. Furthermore, those residents who said they are affected by four or more environmental problems, when asked which three problems they are most affected by, cited rubbish and litter (46%), dog fouling (40%) and poor air quality (39%). This highlights the importance that WCC should attach to improving air quality in Westminster.

2. The AQS needs a vision and a sense of urgency: CCAL’s most important comment is that the AQS needs a clear vision – backed by timescales, measurable objectives and appropriate resources – that recognises the urgency and major work needed for London to comply belatedly with air quality laws. For example, the vision could be “To achieve urgently and sustainably at least World Health Organisation recommended standards of air quality throughout Westminster through direct measures and the lobbying of others”. At a minimum, WCC should commit to use its best efforts to implement successfully actions to improve air quality in Westminster, when it exceeds Limit Values, which are meaningful when judged in the context of all its available powers and the deadlines applicable under UK and European law.

In this context, CCAL applauds WCC’s aim to re-establish Westminster as an exemplar ‘green’ authority. However, the strategy says nothing about what achievements this will require or within what timescale. Please set clear milestones in the AQS. It is possible that WCC has fallen from its position as an exemplar ‘green’ authority by not setting and achieving such milestones in the past.

3. WCC should match resources to the top concern of its residents: CCAL believes that WCC may only have only one full-time person allocated to air quality matters, compared to many people and much money, say, for noise matters. CCAL urges WCC to prioritise air quality more appropriately and allocate sufficient resources to the issue of most concern to residents. Not least, air quality laws will continue to be broken in Westminster unless WCC plays a leading role in the successful implementation of suitable measures.

4. Air pollution near Westminster’s busiest roads must be reduced by over one-third in 15 months to comply with air quality laws: The AQS should take account of the need under Article 22 (paragraph 3) of the AQ Directive for the UK to ensure that the Limit Value plus a Margin of Tolerance are not exceeded if the time extension provisions are used i.e. average annual levels of particulate matter (PM10) must not exceed 40 micrograms per cubic metre (ug/m3) (if no time extension is granted) or 48 ug/m3 (if it is). Similarly for nitrogen dioxide (NO2), average annual levels of NO2 must not exceed – from January 2010 - 40 ug/m3 (if no time extension is granted) or 60 ug/m3 (if it is). Both are important but Figure 2.1 on page 9 shows the many places (all roads) where NO2 is forecast to exceed 60 ug/m3 still in 2010 – this will be illegal since air quality laws allow no derogations for such breaches.

5. ‘The London Principle’: Please apply ‘The London Principle’ (or perhaps ‘The Air Pollution Trade-off Principle’) when assessing climate change and air quality trade-offs (e.g. when considering the graph on page 40). Tackling air pollution holistically requires difficult trade-off decisions between air quality and climate change issues. CCAL encourages policy makers, like WCC, to accept a disbenefit of say 5% in climate change terms provided there is an associated benefit of say 50% in air quality terms (and vice versa) i.e. one to 10. Such an approach should be considered acceptable since large benefits may be hard to find and small disbenefits can be rectified relatively easily through a combination of other policy measures. An example of the former would be slightly increased fuel consumption and emissions of carbon dioxide while an example of the latter would be sharply reduced hazardous emissions.

6. One or more additional, inner, Low Emission Zones are needed: CCAL urges WCC to lobby vigorously for the adoption by early 2010 of one or more additional, inner, low emission zones to reduce sharply air pollution in Westminster since this is likely to be the most cost effective means of complying with air quality laws (as dozens of other cities in Europe have decided). CCAL urges WCC also to adopt measures set out in its letter to the Mayor of London dated 13 July 2008 (on which WCC was copied). That letter is attached to and forms part of this submission. It recommends, for example, the removal of free parking at weekends in central London, since such concessions contribute to heavy congestion at weekends, and the charging of motorcycles (since they are estimated to contribute 18% to PM10 road traffic emissions i.e. just more than cars).

7. Create a ‘tipping point’ of behavioural change: CCAL urges WCC to create a ‘tipping point’ of behavioural change in Westminster that will result in people taking steps to reduce sharply their hazardous emissions. For example, many Councils with serious air quality problems are introducing emissions related parking charges. In CCAL’s view, these should target particularly older diesel vehicles since these are the most polluting vehicles in cities. The omission of such parking measures from the AQS is very surprising.

8. Don’t be a ‘busy fool’: Finally, CCAL urges WCC to quantify the expected impact and cost effectiveness of the measures it is considering to improve air quality in Westminster (not least in relative terms) to ensure that WCC will play its full part in the UK complying fully with air quality laws. Please prioritise the most cost effective measures, which will most likely require behavioural change, even if that requires bold political leadership from WCC. A lack of such work, or a lack of political will, would probably cause WCC to be a ‘busy fool’ in respect of air quality i.e. many inputs but few, if any, worthwhile outputs.

CCAL would be pleased to discuss this response with you or your colleagues.

With best wishes.

Yours sincerely

Simon Birkett
Principal Contact
Campaign for Clean Air in London   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 RESPONSE: 26 September 2008

The Rt. Hon. Hilary Benn MP, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
c/o 3C Ergon House
Horseferry Road
London SW1P 6AL

By email to: air.quality@defra.gsi.gov.uk

Dear Secretary of State

Consultation on draft Local Air Quality Management Guidance

The purpose of this letter is to respond to the consultation by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) on draft Local Air Quality Management Guidance:

http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/airqualitymanage-guidance/index.htm

The Campaign for Clean Air in London (CCAL) welcomes Defra’s continuing commitment to the Local Air Quality Management process as shown by the consultation on the updated guidance.

CCAL is seriously concerned that there appears to be no transparent, effective and readily enforceable mechanism under United Kingdom (UK) laws (e.g. through unambiguous statutory duties) that will impose similar or the same duties on the Mayor of London and/or local authorities to those imposed on the government on behalf of the UK as a Member State under European laws for ambient air quality. As CCAL understands it, the Mayor of London and/or local authorities need only “work towards” the Limit Values set. This allows such entities, in some cases, to pursue “busy fool” inputs without achieving any worthwhile outputs. In contrast, the government has clear duties, with objectives and precise deadlines, and can face legal action and unlimited lump sum and daily fines if it does not comply with relevant laws.

CCAL considers that there must be clear and meaningful ‘pass through’ from the government’s legal duties through to the Mayor of London and/or local authorities since the latter will be responsible, in practice, for implementing many of the most necessary solutions on the ground e.g. modal shift, low emission zones and local parking measures. CCAL urges the government to use all its existing powers (e.g. through the Environment Act and/or the Environment Agency), and new ones if necessary, to ensure that air quality obligations are enforceable at a local level (as well as nationally) including by private citizens. For example, CCAL considers that the Mayor of London and/or local authorities should each be under a clear statutory duty to implement successfully actions to improve local air quality, when it exceeds Limit Values, which are meaningful when judged in the context of all their available powers and the deadlines applicable under UK and European law. CCAL urges the government to establish and publicise widely such a mechanism within the next three months, perhaps at the time the new LAQM Guidance is issued.

Please will you or your officials clarify, fully and in writing, the above situation and the relevant obligations that do and will exist on the Mayor of London and/or local authorities to improve air quality. An email address for correspondence is provided separately to this letter.

CCAL supports fully the submission by Environmental Protection UK in its response to this consultation except as noted above.

With best wishes.

Yours sincerely

Simon Birkett
Principal Contact
Campaign for Clean Air in London   more »

CAMPAIGN RESPONSE: 13 September 2008

The Rt. Hon. Ruth Kelly MP
Secretary of State for Transport
Department for Transport
Great Minster House
76 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DR

13 September 2008

Dear Secretary of State

Euro VI emission limits for heavy duty vehicles: ‘The London Principle’ should be used to guide decisions on trade-offs between air quality and climate change

This response to the Department for Transport’s (DfT’s) public consultation on the European Commission’s (EC’s) proposals for a new European Regulation setting emission standards for heavy duty vehicles (Euro VI), which is due to close on 17 September 2008, is sent on behalf of the Campaign for Clean Air in London (CCAL).

http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/open/euroviconsultation/

CCAL would not normally comment on a consultation by the DfT about Euro emission standards but we consider that this consultation raises vitally important questions, the answers to which can set a powerful framework for all aspects of the difficult and important trade-offs that will be necessary in coming years between climate change and air quality matters (and vice versa).

The Campaign for Clean Air in London

CCAL has only one aim which is to achieve urgently and sustainably at least World Health Organisation (WHO) recommended standards of air quality throughout London. Our immediate priority is to ensure that air quality laws, based on WHO recommendations for particulate matter (so called PM10) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2), established by the new European Union directive on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe are rigorously enforced in each of the next four years leading up to the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

CCAL has received support from Mayor Johnson, leading politicians from the four main political parties in London as well as leading business and community groups including the Central London Partnership, London First and The Knightsbridge Business Group. We have also received a pledge of support from Environmental Protection UK (formerly the National Society for Clean Air and Environmental Protection). Our campaign website is shown in the letterhead above.
 
‘The London Principle’ (or perhaps ‘The Air Pollution Trade-off Principle’)

Tackling air pollution holistically requires difficult trade-off decisions between air quality and climate change issues. CCAL encourages policy makers, like the DfT, to accept a disbenefit of say 5% in climate change terms provided there is an associated benefit of say 50% in air quality terms (and vice versa) i.e. one to 10. Such an approach should be considered acceptable since large benefits may be hard to find and small disbenefits can be rectified relatively easily through a combination of other policy measures. An example of the former would be slightly increased fuel consumption and emissions of carbon dioxide while an example of the latter would be sharply reduced hazardous emissions.

The European Commission’s Proposals

CCAL has the following key comments on the government’s view on the EC’s proposals for a new European Regulation setting emission standards for heavy duty vehicles (Euro VI):

General - The government is right to be supportive of the aims of the EC’s proposal.

Air quality/Climate change trade-offs - The EC’s proposals offer substantial benefits in air quality terms for small disbenefits in climate change terms. CCAL believes that the fuel consumption penalty of between two and three percent indicated by the EC is more accurate than the eight percent indicated by independent advice commissioned by the government. CCAL believes that the European Environmental Bureau, the International Council on Clean Transportation in the US or others would be able to confirm the more favourable picture.

However, even if the government’s advice turns out to be correct (which CCAL doubts), the EC’s proposals would still be fully consistent with ‘The London Principle’ e.g. an 80% reduction in oxides of nitrogen and a 67% reduction in particulate matter emissions limits by comparison with the Euro V standards they would replace (i.e. about 10 units of improvement to air quality for one unit of fuel consumption disbenefit). Of course, the EC’s proposals have the additional benefit of tackling harmful emissions at their source and ensuring the polluter pays directly.

Setting global standards for technology – CCAL supports the EC’s proposal to bring the requirements in line with the United States (US) Environmental Protection Agency 2010 limits. It is clearly right to seek cost efficiencies through global standardisation and economies of scale. CCAL urges the government not to jeopardise essential, and clearly deliverable (i.e. if the US has the technology standard already planned there is no excuse for delay in Europe), technological improvements by suggesting that mainstream policy should cater for remote or unlikely events e.g. by being overcautious with its assumptions on offsetting improvements. Otherwise, the government would drive industry towards the lowest standards not the highest.

Implementation timetable – CCAL urges the government to press for the earliest possible adoption of the EC’s proposals for a new European Regulation setting emissions standards for heavy duty vehicles (Euro VI). A fast timetable is needed to aid compliance with air quality laws across Europe. It should be possible if: US 2010-like limits are adopted; and the approach of using Regulation rather than a new Directive is pursued to save time and increase certainty. There must be no unnecessary delay in the implementation of the EC’s proposals.

Financial incentives – CCAL acknowledges the government’s long opposition to the principle of including provisions on fiscal matters in Article 95 (Qualified Majority Voting) proposals, rather than proposals requiring unanimity. However, CCAL considers that the government should accept the opportunity to offer financial incentives on a case by case basis. First, the government would gain an option not lose one and second, financial incentives are clearly positive not negative per se to the citizen’s tax burden. For both reasons, CCAL considers that the government should support the EC’s proposals for financial incentives and plan to use them actively to achieve quickly substantial and much needed environmental benefits.

Summary

If the EC’s proposals are not supported fully by the UK government, it will be necessary for less efficient measures to be found to ensure compliance with air quality laws (e.g. the banning from our larger cities of a higher proportion of older diesel vehicles than would otherwise by necessary). In this context, it would be irresponsible of the government to do anything other than support fully or strengthen further the proposals from the EC to reduce sharply hazardous emissions.

CCAL supports fully the detailed response being submitted by Environmental Protection UK.

CCAL would be pleased to discuss or expand on any aspect of this letter if you or your officials consider it worthwhile. We can be contacted at the email address provided separately.

Finally, thank you for taking seriously our concerns about air pollution in London and giving the issues we raise your particular attention.
Please acknowledge receipt of this letter.

With best wishes.

Yours sincerely

Simon Birkett
Principal Contact
Campaign for Clean Air in London   more »

Consultation response: 19 July 2008

Commissioner Dimas
European Commission
Environment DG
B – 1049 Brussels
Belgium

19 July 2008

By email: stavros.dimas@ec.europa.eu

Dear Commissioner Dimas

Public consultation on revision of car labelling directive

This contribution to the public consultation on the revision of the car labelling directive, which is due to close on 28 July 2008, is sent on behalf of the Campaign for Clean Air in London (CCAL).

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/08/835&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

We would not normally comment on a consultation by the European Commission about vehicle labelling but we consider that you have deliberately and sensibly raised vitally important questions, the answers to which can set a powerful framework for communication generally in respect of the environmental impact of road transport. Europe needs much greater transparency on environmental performance than currently exists.

The Campaign for Clean Air in London

The purpose of the cross-party Campaign for Clean Air in London (CCAL) is to achieve urgently and sustainably at least World Health Organisation recommended standards of air quality throughout London. The Campaign has received support from Ken Livingstone, leading politicians from all the four main political parties in London and all the amenity societies in Central London as well as leading business groups including the Central London Partnership, London First and The Knightsbridge Business Group. It has also received a pledge of support from Environmental Protection UK (formerly the National Society for the Protection of Clean Air) and the Alliance Against Urban 4x4s. The address of CCAL’s campaign website is shown in the letterhead above.

Consumers need to make ‘trade-offs’ between Air Quality and Climate Change in cities

CCAL considers that Europe is failing currently in its disclosure regime for car labelling and vehicle labelling more generally. Europe gives priority, almost entirely, to vehicle carbon dioxide (CO2) disclosure at the expense of treating vehicle air pollution holistically with the result that many, well intentioned, people are not able to make the judgements they wish when they purchase a vehicle.

We have had several discussions with private individuals who sought to buy the least polluting car for use mainly in the city and ended up buying a diesel engined vehicle because a car salesman ‘bamboozled’ them at the point of sale. Typically, these people have wished subsequently, when they understood the wider picture of climate change and air quality, that they had bought instead a petrol engined vehicle, a hybrid engined vehicle or a zero emissions vehicle. Purchasers of commercial vehicles have reported a lack of available information.

In this context, the United Kingdom (UK) government’s ‘Act on CO2’ calculator has been a lamentable failure. Indeed, it has compounded the UK’s reputation for focussing myopically on vehicle CO2 instead of vehicle air pollution holistically and increased, unnecessarily, diesel pollution in our cities.

Establish best practice based on experience in Europe and the United States

CCAL urges the European Commission, when it is revising the car labelling directive, to base future European disclosure on the best of the practices in Europe and the United States (US) (e.g. those established by the US Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board). Information on US best practice can be found at:

United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Green Vehicle Guide (GVG)

http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/Index.do;jsessionid=82303c770e15b4c4c6e7

California Air Resources Board proposed amendments to the emission control and smog index label regulations

http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/publications/arb/2007-06-21_notice.pdf

In a nutshell, the Green Vehicle Guide gives environmental scores for cars and trucks based on emission levels and fuel economy values.

• The scores range, for each of Air Pollution (taken to mean hazardous emissions) and Greenhouse Gas, from 0 to 10, where 10 is best;
• The scores can be used to compare all vehicles and all model years against one another; and
• The best environmental performers receive the SmartWay designation, which means the vehicle scores well on both Air Pollution and Greenhouse Gas.

The SmartWay designation is earned by those vehicles that score 6 or better on each of the Air Pollution and Greenhouse Gas scores and achieve a combined score of at least 13 when added together. SmartWay Elite is earned by those vehicles that score 9 or better on each of the Air Pollution Score and the Greenhouse Gas Score. SmartWay Elite vehicles are superior environmental performers.

Recommendations – Air Quality Score and Climate Change Score:

CCAL recommends that the revised vehicle labelling directive should ensure that:

1. each vehicle sold (whether new or secondhand) displays an Air Quality Score and a Climate Change Score – from 0 to 10, where 10 is best - similar to the US EPA’s Air Pollution Score and Greenhouse Gas Score respectively. This should lead to international comparability and efficiencies;
2. there is a designation like the SmartWay designation to show one composite score of overall environmental performance for the best scoring vehicles;
3. emissions at least of each of particulates (PM) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) are disclosed equally with CO2 and that a common and consistent measure of grams per kilometre is used;
4. the above scores and measures represent meaningfully the actual, not laboratory test, performance of the vehicle, if necessary showing either a range of emissions for city and highway driving or a combined city/highway driving number;
5. the ‘polluter pays’ principle is followed such that vehicle manufacturers bear the full cost of this disclosure, including for historic information;
6. labelling on emissions generally is more prominent than currently such that anyone likely to consider such information useful can find it easily. A ‘culture’ of transparency and reliable information needs to be created;
7. the approach to labelling and its objectives is publicised widely so that the general public is encouraged to use it; and
8. the above approach is mandatory and independently certified.

Please extend this approach quickly from cars to motorcycles, commercial vehicles, trucks and coaches.

CCAL believes that the general public is more than astute enough to make good use of the above information. We are confident that it would ensure well informed consumer decisions and incentivise manufacturers appropriately. The success of Europe’s traffic-light labelling scheme for white goods and the US EPA’s Green Vehicle Guide is ample evidence to support such confidence.

For your information, we had problems on several occasions trying to submit an online reply to this consultation. In particular, the ‘Name of the organisation’ field did not work properly and there was no guidance on field length for additional text. A brief response was submitted eventually online.

Please acknowledge receipt of this letter.

With best wishes.

Yours sincerely

Simon Birkett
Principal Contact
Campaign for Clean Air in London

By hand:

Winston Fletcher, Chairman, The Knightsbridge Association
Carol Seymour-Newton, Honorary Secretary, The Knightsbridge Association

Cc:

The Rt. Hon. Hilary Benn MP, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
The Rt. Hon. Ruth Kelly MP, Secretary of State for Transport
Mayor Johnson
Sir Simon Milton, Deputy Mayor, Policy and Planning
ORGANISATIONS
Amenity Societies
Helen Ainsworth, EU and International Air Quality, Defra
Jenny Bates, London Regional Campaigns Co-ordinator, Friends of the Earth
Nick Fairholm, Transport for London
Tim Hockney, Executive Director, London First
Stephen Joseph, Executive Director, Campaign for Better Transport
Professor Frank Kelly, Kings College London
Dr Michal Krzyzanowksi, Regional Adviser, Air Quality and Health, WHO
Sir John Lawton, Chair, Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution
Sarah Legge, Principal Policy Adviser – Air Quality, Greater London Authority
David Lemon, Environmental Industries Commission
Blake Ludwig, Managing Director, Alliance Against Urban 4x4s
Dr Noel Olsen, British Medical Association
Professor Bob Maynard, Health Protection Agency
David Muir, Institute of Air Quality Management
Philip Mulligan, Chief Executive, Environmental Protection UK
Derek Picot, Chairman, The Knightsbridge Business Group
By post: Sir Jonathon Porritt, Chairman, UK Sustainable Development Commission
Tony Travers, Director, Greater London Group
Dr Martin Williams, Head of Air and Environment Quality Division, Defra
Tim Williamson, National Air Quality Assessment, Defra
LEADING POLITICIANS
Peter Ainsworth MP, Shadow Secretary of State, Defra, Conservative
Norman Baker MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Transport, Liberal Democrat
Greg Barker MP, Shadow Minister for the Environment, Conservative
Mark Field MP, Conservative
Jim Fitzpatrick MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, DfT
Tom Harris MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport, DfT
The Rt. Hon. Michael Jack MP, Chairman of the Environment and Rural Affairs Select Committee
The Rt. Hon. Sir Malcolm Rifkind QC MP, Conservative
The Rt. Hon. the Lord Rooker, Minister of State, Defra
Joan Ruddock MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State
Jonathan Shaw MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State and Minister for the South East
Theresa Villiers MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Transport, Conservative
Professor Steve Webb MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs, Liberal Democrat
The Rt. Hon. Rosie Winterton MP, Minister of State for Transport
Phil Woolas MP, Minister of State, Defra
Tim Yeo MP, Chairman Environmental Audit Committee, Conservative
John Bowis MEP, London, Conservative
Chris Davies MEP, Liberal Democrat
Robert Evans MEP, London, Labour
Mary Honeyball MEP, London, Labour
Syed Kamall MEP, London, Conservative
Ms Jean Lambert MEP, London, Green Party
Baroness Ludford MEP, London, Liberal Democrat
Linda McAvan MEP, Labour
Claude Moraes MEP, London, Labour
Charles Tannock MEP, London, Conservative
Richard Barnes AM, Leader of the Conservative Group
Darren Johnson AM, Deputy Chair of the London Assembly, Green
Sian Berry, the Green Party
Len Duvall AM, Leader of the Labour Group, GLA
Mike Tuffrey AM, Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group, GLA   more »

OPEN LETTER TO MAYOR JOHNSON SENT ON CAMPAIGN FOR CLEAN AIR IN LONDON LETTERHEAD

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

By email: mayor@london.gov.uk

13 July 2008

Dear Mayor Johnson,

Proposals to improve London’s air quality

You will be aware that the new European Union directive on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (the new AQ Directive) requires sharp reductions in air pollution in London by January 2010.

In this context, it is time that you announced the measures that your administration will take to ensure that air quality laws will be complied with in London. It is not good enough, more than 10 months after you launched your campaign to become Mayor of London, that you have not announced a single, significant, new policy that will ensure London plays its part in ensuring that air quality laws will be complied with fully in London. Worse even than taking no action, you have acted seemingly to withdraw or ‘threaten’ existing air quality measures.

The purpose of this letter is to prompt you to take action to improve London’s air quality.

Road transport causes all the breaches of air quality laws in London

The government has admitted that road transport is the cause of all the breaches of air quality laws in the United Kingdom (UK) with diesel emissions being by far the biggest single component. The solutions involve two overlapping ‘circles’ of measures – one for congestion and the other for emissions - that target the most polluted areas with technology-based solutions and create a ‘tipping point’ of behavioural change backed by awareness, persuasion, incentives and regulation (when necessary). Behavioural change offers the most cost effective solutions.

Proposals to reduce congestion

In the congestion ‘circle’, road pricing is essential, fair and much needed in areas like central and west London, to tackle congestion and ‘make the polluters pay’ since vehicles produce less than half as much air pollution once their speed reaches 30 kilometres per hour. It should operate seven days per week in the most polluted areas. The Central and Western Extension of the Congestion Charging Zone (together the ‘CCZ’) should operate as two co-ordinated, independent, schemes i.e. people should be charged to cross between zones and resident discounts in each should apply only for one of the two zones.

A fair policy would ensure that the ‘polluters pay’. Trucks and coaches should pay substantially more than cars. Why is it that the ‘icon’ of free markets, New York City, can propose a charge of $21 for trucks and coaches (compared to $8 for cars) while such vehicles in London can pay less than cars through a fleet discount mechanism? Motorcycles should pay a modest amount, perhaps £4, to drive in the CCZ since they are among the most polluting vehicles. The London Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (LAEI) Second Annual Report (for 2003 that was published in August 2006) estimated that motorcycles will generate some 19% of all fine particulate matter (PM2.5) from road traffic in the most polluted areas in 2010 and much higher still proportions of other pollutants, such as benzene (87%), butadiene (65%), non-methane volatile organic compounds 65%) and methane (34%).

A ‘tag and beacon’ road pricing scheme should be offered in parallel with the current Congestion Charging Scheme so that vehicles that drive little and outside the times of congestion can register and pay nothing. If the government will not set inter-operability parameters for a national scheme, London must proceed on its own and blame the government for subsequent problems that arise for road users elsewhere in the UK.

The Campaign for Clean Air in London (‘CCAL’) urges you also to tackle other causes of congestion not least at weekends when it is particularly bad e.g. by removing free parking at weekends in central London. You should also ensure that unnecessary roadworks and unnecessary closures of arterial roads are not allowed e.g. the frequent closure of South Carriage Drive in west London. The CCAL supports a 20 miles per hour speed limit in residential streets.

Please ensure that any consultation or survey conducted about the future of the Western Extension to the Congestion Charging Zone (WECCZ) makes clear not only the substantial benefits that have arisen from this scheme (e.g. in terms of lower traffic volumes and reduced congestion) but also that, without effective road pricing, it is likely to be necessary to ban, by 2010, a much higher proportion of the most polluting vehicles from these areas than would otherwise be the case. As you know, the CCAL wrote to Commissioner Dimas (copying you) on 5 May 2008 pointing out that the removal of the WECCZ could breach Article 12 of the new AQ Directive. You should decide now to keep and toughen the WECCZ.

Proposals to reduce emissions

In the emissions ‘circle’, we need urgently an additional, inner, Low Emission Zone (LEZ) at least in central and west London to reduce harmful emissions. This should require all diesel vehicles entering the zone to match Euro 4 engine emissions standards for both particulate matter and oxides of nitrogen by 2010. The CCAL supports requiring petrol engined vehicles to match at least Euro 3 engine emissions standards for both particulate matter and oxides of nitrogen by 2010 (since these vehicles are much less polluting than their diesel counterparts). An inner LEZ must include all vehicle categories to be ‘fair and effective’ e.g. motorcycles, cars, trucks and coaches. It will join dozens of similar schemes around Europe which target the most polluted areas of large cities. See: http://www.lowemissionzones.eu/. London’s existing blunt, broad scheme is not enough on its own.

Please press the government to set urgently national standards for the abatement of emissions of oxides of nitrogen from older, particularly diesel, vehicles (to meet Euro 4 emission standards for diesel and Euro 3 emission standards for petrol) since these standards could then be adopted uniformly across the UK to address expected breaches of air quality laws for NO2 in a number of cities. If the government will not set such standards, London must proceed on its own and blame the government for subsequent problems that arise for road users elsewhere in the UK.

Emissions from taxis are estimated in the LAEI to cause some 37% of the most hazardous road transport emissions (exhaust PM2.5) in the most polluted parts of London in 2010. The previous Mayor’s Taxi Emissions Strategy expires this month with nothing to replace it. Instead of weakening controls on taxis as currently seems to be the case, you should require all licensed taxis driving in the most polluted areas to meet Euro 4 emissions standards for particulate matter and oxides of nitrogen by 2010. Taxi users should contribute financially to the necessary expense.

Please pursue vigorously other measures that might reduce vehicle emissions at source e.g. technology solutions that can be retrofitted to vehicles to shut off engines when idling for more than a few seconds. Such an approach should be combined with action by local authorities to ‘blitz’ unnecessary engine idling. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea commented in its Local Air Quality Management, Air Quality Action Plan Update 2008 that “in 2007 [its] enforcement officers attended 38 complaints and have warned drivers to switch off their engines and they have done so in every case”. We have asked the City of Westminster whether it operates a similar scheme. Clearly, such action should be taken hundreds of times per annum, not just dozens of times, in each of the most polluted boroughs.

Other measures to improve London’s air quality

As well as much needed road transport measures, it is essential that other actions are taken to improve air quality. These include:

• Increasing public awareness of the extent of air quality problems and their health impacts and helping people, through education, to understand the part they can play in improving air quality by the choices they make;
• Encouraging modal shifts to less and non-polluting modes of transport e.g. walking, cycling and public transport;
• Encourage the take-up of more efficient domestic and other boilers;
• Reducing substantially the number of festival bonfires; and
• Ensuring compliance at least with the ‘Best Practices Guidance: For the Control of Dust and Emissions from Construction and Demolition’.

A broad, holistic strategy is needed now that will address fairly and effectively the actual underlying causes of London’s air quality problems. Please ‘aim ahead of climate change’ and do not be a ‘busy fool’ who pursues a myriad of polices that achieve little or nothing.

Only the government and you have the resources necessary to determine the complete, necessary, package of measures and the time by which each element must be implemented to ensure that air quality laws will be complied with fully in London.

Take action now or others will soon force you to do so

There are clear environmental, social and economic reasons for improving the UK’s air quality quickly. Despite this, you seem to have shown yourself unwilling, after 10 months, of mustering even the political will needed to tackle London’s air quality problems. Do not listen to the same siren voices that argued against the creation and enforcement of the Clean Air Act introduced in 1956. London needs a new approach from you, by the autumn of this year at the latest, that will give stakeholders of all types, whether from business, the non-governmental sector or citizens generally, the certainty and time necessary to play their full part in delivering the required changes in the most cost effective manner.

Failing urgent action by you, the Campaign for Clean Air in London shall have to urge: the European Commission to take robust action against the UK to defend World Health Organisation-based air quality laws; and the UK government to require you to take action.

I would be pleased to meet you to discuss these proposals. In any event, I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely

Simon Birkett

Principal Contact
Campaign for Clean Air in London

Cc:

Commissioner Dimas, Environment DG
The Rt. Hon. Hilary Benn MP, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
The Rt. Hon. Ruth Kelly MP, Secretary of State for Transport
David Cameron MP, Leader of the Conservative Party
John Bowis MEP, Conservative
Jean Lambert MEP, Green
Baroness Ludford MEP, Liberal Democrat
Claude Moraes MEP, Labour
Richard Barnes AM, Statutory Deputy Mayor and Leader of the Conservative Group
Len Duvall AM, Leader of the Labour Group, London Assembly
Darren Johnson AM, Green, Chair of the Transport and Environment Committee
Mike Tuffrey AM, Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group, London Assembly
Valerie Shawcross AM, Chair of the Transport Committee, London Assembly
Tim Hockney, Executive Director, Transport, London First
Councillor Colin Barrow, Leader of the Council, City of Westminster
Councillor Merrick Cockell, Leader of Kensington and Chelsea Council   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 »

Consultation response: 4 November 2007

UK report regarding plans and programmes to meet EU air quality limit values

The purpose of this letter is to respond on behalf of the Campaign for Clean Air in London to the consultation being carried out by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) on the United Kingdom (UK) and Devolved Administrations’ draft report on plans and programmes to meet European Union (EU) ambient air quality limit values. The letter is addressed jointly to the Secretary of State for Transport because CAiL understands that the Department for Transport (DfT) has joint responsibility for the UK meeting its legal obligations in respect of air quality and the consultation document states that, historically, “In all cases, the exceedances were due to emissions from traffic”.

   more »

Campaign letter: 24 October 2007

What is the DfT doing to ensure the UK meets EU Air Quality Limit Values?

The primary purpose of this letter is to request please an urgent and comprehensive answer as to what the Department for Transport (DfT) is doing now and planning to introduce as specific measures to ensure that the United Kingdom (UK) achieves the European Union’s (EU) Limit Values for air quality throughout London given that road transport, particularly in so-called “hotspot areas”, is the biggest single cause of exceedances? Crucially, by what date does the DfT consider that these binding legal obligations for air quality will be met?

With the greatest respect, the Campaign for Clean Air in London (CAiL) has seen no evidence demonstrating that the DfT has yet engaged seriously with air quality as an urgent problem. To put the seriousness of this matter into perspective, one form of air pollution alone, called particulate matter caused over 1,000 premature deaths in London in 2005 which compares with around 230 people who died in London from road traffic accidents in each of 2005 and 2006 and 617 such deaths per annum nationally from passive workplace related smoking before the recent legislation came into force.

Given the seriousness, urgency and scope of the issues raised in this letter, we have copied this letter to the Prime Minister.

   more »

Consultation response: 19 October 2007

Proposed Emissions Related Congestion Charging (the CO2 Charge)

The purpose of this letter is to respond on behalf of the Campaign for Clean Air in London to the consultation being carried out by Transport for London (TfL) on your behalf on a proposal to introduce Emissions Related Congestion Charging in 2008.

The Campaign for Clean Air in London (CAiL) fully supports effective “polluter pays” charging schemes. Given that road transport causes between 50% and 75% of the air pollution in London’s busiest roads, and that this pollution is linked closely to the amount on fuel burnt, CAiL welcomes a link being created by Mayor Livingstone between: (i) road pricing and engine size (i.e. the “quantity” of fuel burnt); and (ii) engine efficiency (i.e. the “quality” of fuel burnt).

However, CAiL considers that the current proposal should be expanded substantially and combined quickly with Dynamic Road Pricing (“tag and beacon” or its equivalent) to create a fairer and more ambitious scheme that will ensure that road transport makes its full contribution to the tackling of London’s serious air quality problem. CAiL urges Mayor Livingstone to create a behavioural “tipping point” with this scheme that could be sufficient to avoid the need otherwise for restrictive legislation.

In the week when the European Commission has announced details of the legal steps it is taking against the United Kingdom (UK) for breaching its air quality obligations, CAiL has still not seen any evidence that reasonable efforts are being made by relevant UK authorities to introduce sufficient measures that together can be expected to result in the UK meeting its current or likely future legal obligations under European Union (EU) air quality legislation. It is no good any of us being “busy fools” – introducing measures that achieve little – a much more ambitious air quality plan with bold and decisive action is needed now.

   more »

Consultation response: 18 August 2007

Public Consultation on future Euro VI emission limits for heavy duty vehicles

This contribution to the Public Consultation on the future Euro VI emission limits for heavy duty vehicles, which is due to close on 5 September 2007, is sent on behalf of the Campaign for Clean Air in London.

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/07/1100&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

We would not normally comment on a consultation by the European Commission about Euro emission standards but we consider that you have deliberately and sensibly raised a vitally important question, the answer to which can set a powerful framework for all aspects of the difficult and important trade-offs that will be necessary in coming years between Climate Change and Air Quality matters (and vice versa).

“The Air Pollution Trade-off Principle” (perhaps “The London Principle”)

Treating Air Pollution holistically requires difficult trade-off decisions between Air Quality and Climate Change issues. The Campaign for Clean Air in London encourages policy makers, like the European Commission, to accept a disbenefit of up to about 5% in Climate Change terms provided there is an associated benefit of over 50% in Air Quality terms (and vice versa) i.e. one to 10. Such an approach should be considered acceptable since large benefits may be hard to find and small disbenefits can be rectified relatively easily through a combination of other policy measures.

   more »

Campaign letters: 11 June 2007

Government comments on Air Quality legal breaches

Commenting on a letter sent on behalf of David Miliband, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, replying to a recent submission on the Draft Climate Change Bill and other matters, Simon Birkett, Principal Contact for the cross-party Campaign for Clean Air in London, said:

“While we welcome tough action by the Government in the forthcoming Climate Change Bill, it is becoming increasingly untenable for the Government to treat this aspect of Air Pollution in isolation from Air Quality against a tidal wave of contrary advice from some of the world’s leading organisations and individuals.

“As the consultation period on the Draft Climate Change Bill closes, the Government is saying it recognises the need to treat Air Pollution holistically. Its actions now need to support its words."

   more »

Campaign letter: 12 May 2007

Setting and enforcing European Union Legal Limits for Air Quality

This letter is sent on behalf of the Campaign for Clean Air in London to ask you for reassurance, skillful facilitation and decisive action please in respect of three matters:

• first, please will you explain the reasons for the delay in the Second Reading of the proposed new European Union (EU) Directive on Air Pollution and give reassurances about the likely consequences of that delay?;
• second, please will the Environment Directorate seek to achieve, as facilitator for the Second Reading, at least the “Highest Common Denominator” compromise between the position taken formally last year by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament in respect of that Directive?; and
• third, please will the Environment Directorate-General (DG) commence now the process for formal enforcement action against the Member States that breached the EU Legal Limits for coarse particulate matter (PM10) in 2005 (and subsequently in respect of 2006)?

   more »

Consultation response: 13 May 2007

Response to Consultation on Climate Change Bill: Treat air pollution holistically

This letter is sent on behalf of the Campaign for Clean Air in London in response to the Consultation by the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) on the draft Climate Change Bill.

We support fully the need to have Climate Change legislation that sets legally binding limits for carbon dioxide (CO2) within a robust, consistent and ambitious framework broadly in the form of the draft Climate Change Bill. However, in our view, two further points are important:

1. the United Kingdom (UK) will miss a great opportunity to lead the world if it introduces a key piece of air pollution legislation that addresses climate change in isolation. Does the UK want to be the first and only country with a Climate Change Act and the only one that fails to treat air pollution holistically? Or will it adopt a very simple mechanism to include appropriate measures for air quality in the legislation, full details of which are contained in this letter, to ensure that air pollution is addressed holistically? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recommended such an approach in the last few days; and

2. Annual Budgets for CO2 would be more effective at tackling climate change than five year Budgets. How can the Government, as the Environment and Climate Change Minister was doing in New York on 8 May, encourage companies to treat carbon (i.e. budgeting and) reporting as the same “no-brainer” as proper financial (i.e. budgeting and) reporting as part of the Government’s Carbon Disclosure Project, when it will not set Annual Budgets for CO2 itself?

   more »

Campaign letter: 21 April 2007

Achieving sustainably at least World Health Organisation recommended standards of air quality throughout London by 2012 Olympics

I am writing on behalf of the Campaign for Clean Air in London to ask the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) to commit, as part of its wider commitment for London 2012 to be the greenest Games in modern times, to London achieving sustainably at least World Health Organisation (WHO) recommended standards of air quality throughout London by no later than the London 2012 Summer Olympics.

   more »

Campaign letter: 21 April 2007

"WHO guidelines confirm importance of individual air pollutants"

“The personal letter to the Campaign for Clean Air in London from Dr Krzyzanowski, who is Europe’s leading scientific authority on air quality and health, is a very welcome and significant contribution that should be of considerable interest to everyone in Europe who is genuinely committed to improving air quality” said Simon Birkett, Principal Contact for the Campaign for Clean Air in London.

“For far too long, air pollution policy has failed to tackle air quality holistically (or fast enough). For example, some of the measures introduced to reduce particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10) emissions from diesel engines (which have still not resulted in European Union (EU) legal limits for 2005 being met) have exacerbated the nitrogen dioxide (NO2) air pollution problem to the extent that Transport for London estimates that 1,370,000 people in London in 2008 will be exposed to unhealthy levels of nitrogen dioxide unless urgent further action is taken.

“By confirming the importance of individual air pollutants and the need to adopt a comprehensive approach to address particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide and ozone if the health impacts of the pollution are to be eliminated, Dr Krzyzanowski has again made a major contribution to the understanding of crucial air quality issues. There is no longer any excuse for political leaders and other policy setters to fail to tackle air pollution urgently and holistically.

“The Campaign for Clean Air in London therefore urges all those working on the Climate Change Bill and the forthcoming revised Air Quality Strategies at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Greater London Authority and in individual London boroughs to develop convincing plans that will show how all hazardous air pollutants will be tackled to meet EU legal limits for each such air pollutant by a specific date at least close to the earliest date required by the EU to meet that limit.”

   more »

Consultation response: 13 January 2007

Response to Second Consultation on the Low Emission Zone

The purpose of this letter is to respond on behalf of The Knightsbridge Association, which represents over 1,000 people and businesses in the area between Hyde Park Corner and Queen’s Gate, to the consultation being carried out by Transport for London (TfL) on your behalf on a proposal to introduce a Low Emission Zone (LEZ) in 2008. This letter is supported fully by the “Campaign for Clean Air in London” which seeks to achieve urgently World Health Organisation (WHO) recommended standards of air quality throughout London noting that most of these were expected to be achieved by January 2010 in 1999 legislation.

Summary

The Knightsbridge Association supports strongly road pricing and emission schemes in general and seeks that they should be ambitious, effective and well thought through. We have been concerned to discover from the consultation documents for the proposed LEZ that a serious problem with particulate matter air pollution (PM10) is still expected in 2010 and that:

1. The Base Case for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) air pollution in London over the next few years is expected now to be more than twice as bad as TfL had thought only last January and with no end now in sight;
2. European Union (EU) legal limits and WHO recommended standards for NO2 are not being given the same priority as the same limits for PM10 even recognising the differences between them;
3. The proposed benefits of the LEZ are now less than they were in early 2006;
4. The latest proposal for the LEZ does not address adequately the major changes that have taken place in the external environment since the first LEZ consultation in January 2006;
5. The consultation documents make clear that the proposed LEZ will have a “negligible” impact on climate change and no “significant impacts on traffic levels or congestion”; and
6. Costs are higher than they would have been if action had been taken as soon as 1999 air pollution legislation was published and will increase sharply if tough action is delayed.

Fresh thinking is need urgently by TfL and the Mayor to deliver a more ambitious LEZ that tackles much sooner and more effectively the serious air pollution problem in London.

   more »

Campaign letter: 5 January 2007

Invitation to Pledge support to the Campaign for Clean Air in London

The purpose of this letter is to invite each of you to Pledge your support, as those controlling the most relevant levers of power and as senior members of the Labour Party, to the cross-party “Campaign for Clean Air in London” with its primary objective being “To achieve urgently World Health Organisation (WHO) recommended standards of air quality throughout London”. This letter invites simultaneously an identical Pledge from the other main political parties and their key national and London representatives (who are asterisked in the Courtesy Copy list at the end of this letter). We would welcome Pledges from the other organisations copied. We wrote to the Prime Minister on 23 December 2006 inviting him to Pledge his support to the Campaign and its primary objective and await his reply.

Six fundamental principles underpin the Campaign for Clean Air in London which was founded by The Knightsbridge Association in 2006. These are to:

1. Acknowledge that “Unlimited and free access to clean air of acceptable quality is a fundamental human necessity and right” and “that an unequal distribution of health risks over the population raises concerns of environmental justice and equity”. The former were the opening words to the Foreword and the latter appeared on page 19 of the WHO’s report “Health aspects of air pollution” published in June 2004;
2. Achieve urgently WHO recommended standards of air quality throughout London (and the United Kingdom). With few exceptions, these have been required to be met by January 2010 by legislation since 1999 (and we note that there were widespread breaches of European Union (EU) legal limits for particulate matter (PM10) in London in 2005);
3. Protect Londoners by increasing substantially public awareness of the serious air pollution problem in London (and elsewhere in the United Kingdom). Across London, more than four times as many people died in 2005 from the effects of PM10 air pollution as they did from road traffic accidents. Air pollution from nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in London is getting worse not better;
4. Treat air pollution holistically, and its two main elements equally robustly in all relevant initiatives, and back annual targets and necessary measures with legislation (i.e. air quality – mainly PM2.5 and PM10, NO2 and ozone (O3) – and climate change – mainly carbon dioxide (CO2)). Sir Nicholas Stern highlighted the importance of this approach on pages 276 to 278 of his recent report. Two examples are the forthcoming Climate Change Bill (for which the Mayor should press for annual targets for air quality as he has done for climate change) and the Environmental Contract (in which Defra should include a Contract for Air with its planned Contracts for Water and Waste);
5. Tackle air quality to improve the international competitiveness of London (and the United Kingdom as a whole) by taking tough action in the short term to deliver long term benefits. The Mayor was right to say in a letter to the Financial Times, on 23 December 2006 titled “Globalisation has brought tremendous benefits to London”, that Londoners are enjoying the benefits of globalisation … in the quality of their lives”. These benefits are jeopardised by London’s poor air quality. A report by the European Environment Agency titled “Air pollution at street level in European cities” published in 2006 shows, in Figure 4.1 on page 11, that average mean annual NO2 urban background concentrations in London were third worst of 20 cities behind only Milan and Paris and just ahead of Rome. Unless urgent action is taken to improve air quality in London, the loss of “agglomeration” benefits to London is likely to far outweigh the short term restructuring costs necessary to achieve a healthy environment and underpin sustainable growth in London. Furthermore, if more had been done to achieve air quality targets when they were set in 1999, it would be costing less to take action now. Costs will increase sharply and benefits will fade away the longer that tough action is delayed; and
6. Demonstrate the political will necessary to achieve and exceed WHO recommended standards for air quality by taking tangible steps that result quickly in measurable improvements in air quality. We all know that once the political will exists to tackle air pollution that practical ways of addressing it will be found as they were in the past for sulphur dioxide, leaded petrol and the ozone layer. It really is that simple.

   more »

Consultation response: 3 December 2006

London Plan Further Alterations: Climate Change and Air Quality

I am writing on behalf of The Knightsbridge Association, which represents around 1,000 people and businesses in the area between Hyde Park Corner and Queen’s Gate in Central London, to respond, in respect of air quality matters, to the public consultation on the Draft Further Alteration to the London Plan. Separately, we are seeking your commitment to protect local residents, local businesses and visitors (of which there are many) in the Knightsbridge area from high levels of air pollution from nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) and street level ozone (O3) when you finalise the London Plan.

The Knightsbridge Association is seeking personal commitments from you on behalf of London’s government to:

i. recognise the extent and worsening trend for air pollution in London and that this problem needs urgent action as tough as that, for example, required to reduce road traffic fatalities further;
ii. treat air pollution holistically in the London Plan and in all relevant initiatives (i.e. air quality – mainly PM10 and PM2.5, NO2 and O3 – and climate change – mainly carbon dioxide (CO2));
iii. treat air quality at least as robustly as climate change in the London Plan and all relevant initiatives e.g. in your Climate Change Bill initiative with the Friends of the Earth;
iv. adopt for London the 12 commitments for air quality sought by The Knightsbridge Association in its letter to the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) dated 25 June (which is attached and can be downloaded from our website). This letter was supported by almost all the community groups representing Central London, with most of those seeking the same commitments in respect of their own areas, and leading London politicians Angie Bray, Mark Field and Darren Johnson (see later); and
v. include a commitment in the London Plan policy section to specific air quality outcomes with annual action plans, by primary postcode (e.g. SW7), that are independently assessed.

The purpose of the London Plan should be to make unambiguous commitments and establish a robust framework with clearly defined responsibilities and accountability for delivering them. In our considered view, it does not yet pass that test in relation to air quality and particularly so when part of the air pollution “goal posts” are (rightly) moving to meet climate change challenges. We urge you to go much further in the London Plan by making the commitments summarised above.

We request respectfully that you reply personally please to this letter in your capacity as Mayor of London.

   more »

Campaign letter: 12 November 2006

Defra recognises air quality aligns with climate change

Dear Secretary of State and Dr Williams (of Defra)

Thank you, Dr Williams, for your reply to the two letters addressed to the Secretary of State from The Knightsbridge Association in your role as Head of Air and Environment Quality Division at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). We assume that you are replying on behalf of the Secretary of State who was copied in the email attaching your letter. This further letter on behalf of The Knightsbridge Association is addressed to the Secretary of State as well as you.

We have the following comments or questions in respect of your letter dated 7 November and ask respectfully for the Secretary of State and Defra’s further consideration and reply to them...


   more »