Everyone who cares about public health and environmental regulation should welcome the expansion of London’s ultra-low emission zone (Ulez), which launches on Tuesday. Air pollution is estimated to cause 4,000 premature deaths each year in the capital, with nitrogen dioxide from exhausts being the main danger, along with particulate matter whose effect is likened by scientists to inhaling tiny particles of tar. Air pollution causes disproportionate harm to low-income families, who are most likely to live on main roads and least likely to own cars. It is particularly damaging to children’s growing lungs. That the mayor, Sadiq Khan, has defied pressure to delay or weaken the scheme is to his credit.
In France, vehicles that do not meet new limits have been banned from urban areas. In London, drivers of non-compliant vehicles – mostly petrol ones dating from before 2005, and diesel before 2015 – must pay a daily charge of £12.50, with higher charges for lorries and coaches. While no scheme is flawless, the improvements to air quality achieved by the existing scheme, covering inner London, mean that Londoners can be confident of the extension’s health benefits.
There is no point, however, in denying the risks. Mr Khan’s decision to press ahead was made easier because of Labour’s large lead in London polls and with the Conservatives in disarray. However, opponents to Ulez expansion have been emboldened by the Tories’ narrow victory in July’s Uxbridge byelection, where the scheme was seen as a factor in the campaign. In Manchester, another Labour mayor, Andy Burnham, paused a planned clean air zone in the face of rising protests and cost of living pressures. His argument is a good one: the Treasury should fund a scrappage scheme, compensating businesses and owners of polluting vehicles, to ensure they do not bear a disproportionate cost.
Under the terms of London’s £110m scheme (funded by the mayor), owners of disqualified cars can apply for a £2,000 payment, with differing terms for motorcycles and vans used by businesses. Earlier this month, eligibility was widened so that applicants no longer need to be on benefits. Mr Khan has done the right thing because central government did not. Such measures should also help calm his party leadership’s nerves, post-Uxbridge, and win over some voters worried about rising bills. Nevertheless, police in London have warned of the risk of vandalism to fixed cameras.
Air quality matters to voters but so do living standards, including transport costs, the personal freedom associated with driving, and fairness. The struggle to reconcile these priorities is why the significance of the Ulez scheme goes beyond London. Finding ways to protect the environment, while sharing out the cost of the transition away from fossil fuels, is the key public policy challenge of our time.
It speaks volumes about Rishi Sunak that rather than come up with solutions he prefers to whip up resentment about the need to adopt greener lifestyles. Such grievances are not entirely without basis. Small business owners, or drivers of 10-year-old diesel cars, may feel legitimately angry about policies targeting them rather than multiple-car households or the growing number of private jets. Ministers have given financial assistance to Birmingham, Bristol and Portsmouth to help fund their clean air zones, but have refused to support London’s scheme. Rather than capitulate in the face of Tory attempts to exploit the climate crisis for short-term political gain, Labour nationally should call them out.
