William Prescott is a researcher at Bright Blue.
Despite representing one of the greatest threats to public health, responsible for up to 43,000 deaths in the UK each year, efforts to reduce England’s air pollution have proven either politically fraught, ineffective or failed to consider the needs of those from deprived areas. Fortunately, Bright Blue’s new report, Up in the air? Delivering cleaner air in a socially just way, offers a path forward.
The harmful effects of air pollution are felt across people’s lifetimes, from infancy to old age. On top of negatively affecting foetal development, lung growth and cognitive abilities, air pollution also increases the risk of dementia and many types of cancer. Worse still, those negative consequences fall most heavily on England’s deprived areas.
The two sectors that are especially responsible for air pollution in deprived areas are transport and domestic burning. Unfortunately, action on air pollution, especially that related to transport, has become increasingly politicised in recent years. Measures such as the expansion of London’s Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) – that city’s Clean Air Zone (CAZ) – to all of greater London have proven controversial. Anger at the ULEZ expansion was blamed by some for the Labour candidate’s defeat at the Uxbridge and South Ruislip by-election. This is despite the success that such schemes have shown in reducing air pollution.
A key reason for the opposition to existing clean air measures has been the insufficient support available to those on lower incomes. The London Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ), for example, did include a £2,000 scrappage scheme for those disposing of non-compliant cars. But, unfortunately, the support is not enough.
For example, the median cost of purchasing a ULEZ-compliant car exceeded £18,000 by August 2023, when the ULEZ expanded to cover almost all of Greater London. Moreover, the scheme’s one-size-fits-all approach to pricing has meant that outer London drivers are paying the same rates as those living in inner London, despite the lesser availability of public transport in the city’s outer boroughs.
These concerns were echoed elsewhere in focus groups we conducted for the report, including Birmingham and Liverpool. Across all groups, the primary objections to clean air zones (CAZs) related to their impact on low-income earners and the lack of adequate public transport alternatives.
But we can address those problems. To address concerns around the fairness of CAZs, local and combined authorities should be allowed to generate reasonable profits from their CAZs as long as the funds are used to fund more generous scrappage schemes — current legislation forbids them from doing this.
In recognition of the differences in public transport availability between inner and outer urban areas, we recommend requiring city-wide CAZs to differentiate charges for driving in inner cities and outer urban areas.
Finally, to protect people with disabilities, we propose that CAZs across England should provide exemptions for all Blue Badge holders.
As mentioned, domestic burning is another key source of air pollution. Thanks to its growing popularity, domestic burning is now the largest single contributor of annual total emissions of the pollutant PM2.5 in the UK. This is particularly significant because of that pollutant’s ability to reach into the lungs and the bloodstream.
Policies to reduce pollution from domestic burning, though relatively uncontroversial, have proven ineffective. For example, even the new, less polluting ‘Ecodesign’ stoves, the only wood-burning stoves that can now be sold in England, still emit 750 times the amount of PM2.5 per hour as a heavy goods vehicle. Such stoves also emit over 450 times more PM2.5 emissions per hour than a gas boiler.
Unfortunately, the domestic burning problem has only been worsening in recent years, with PM2.5 emissions from it increasing by 35 per cent between 2010 and 2020. People often associate domestic burning with a homely feel, with some even seeing it as more environmentally friendly than gas heating.
Luckily, those problems, too, can be addressed by sound policy.
For one, by adding warning labels to new and existing stoves stating the harms caused by domestic burning, as well as permitting local authorities to ban domestic burning on days when air pollution reaches levels that are harmful to human health, we can both protect public and go some to altering the favourable perceptions surrounding domestic burning. Exemptions would be available for the very small number of households with no alternative source of heating.
Additionally, we should mandate that only stoves compliant with Nordic emission standards for new stoves, which emit less than half the maximum emissions of PM2.5 than Ecodesign stoves do. This would further reduce the harm caused by new stoves.
Coming up with policies that successfully balance both the need to reduce air pollution and to protect the most vulnerable has so far proven challenging. However, if we want to slay the invisible killer that is air pollution, we need policies that ensure no one is left behind. Bright Blue’s new report offers ways of doing just that.
William Prescott is a researcher at Bright Blue.
Despite representing one of the greatest threats to public health, responsible for up to 43,000 deaths in the UK each year, efforts to reduce England’s air pollution have proven either politically fraught, ineffective or failed to consider the needs of those from deprived areas. Fortunately, Bright Blue’s new report, Up in the air? Delivering cleaner air in a socially just way, offers a path forward.
The harmful effects of air pollution are felt across people’s lifetimes, from infancy to old age. On top of negatively affecting foetal development, lung growth and cognitive abilities, air pollution also increases the risk of dementia and many types of cancer. Worse still, those negative consequences fall most heavily on England’s deprived areas.
The two sectors that are especially responsible for air pollution in deprived areas are transport and domestic burning. Unfortunately, action on air pollution, especially that related to transport, has become increasingly politicised in recent years. Measures such as the expansion of London’s Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) – that city’s Clean Air Zone (CAZ) – to all of greater London have proven controversial. Anger at the ULEZ expansion was blamed by some for the Labour candidate’s defeat at the Uxbridge and South Ruislip by-election. This is despite the success that such schemes have shown in reducing air pollution.
A key reason for the opposition to existing clean air measures has been the insufficient support available to those on lower incomes. The London Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ), for example, did include a £2,000 scrappage scheme for those disposing of non-compliant cars. But, unfortunately, the support is not enough.
For example, the median cost of purchasing a ULEZ-compliant car exceeded £18,000 by August 2023, when the ULEZ expanded to cover almost all of Greater London. Moreover, the scheme’s one-size-fits-all approach to pricing has meant that outer London drivers are paying the same rates as those living in inner London, despite the lesser availability of public transport in the city’s outer boroughs.
These concerns were echoed elsewhere in focus groups we conducted for the report, including Birmingham and Liverpool. Across all groups, the primary objections to clean air zones (CAZs) related to their impact on low-income earners and the lack of adequate public transport alternatives.
But we can address those problems. To address concerns around the fairness of CAZs, local and combined authorities should be allowed to generate reasonable profits from their CAZs as long as the funds are used to fund more generous scrappage schemes — current legislation forbids them from doing this.
In recognition of the differences in public transport availability between inner and outer urban areas, we recommend requiring city-wide CAZs to differentiate charges for driving in inner cities and outer urban areas.
Finally, to protect people with disabilities, we propose that CAZs across England should provide exemptions for all Blue Badge holders.
As mentioned, domestic burning is another key source of air pollution. Thanks to its growing popularity, domestic burning is now the largest single contributor of annual total emissions of the pollutant PM2.5 in the UK. This is particularly significant because of that pollutant’s ability to reach into the lungs and the bloodstream.
Policies to reduce pollution from domestic burning, though relatively uncontroversial, have proven ineffective. For example, even the new, less polluting ‘Ecodesign’ stoves, the only wood-burning stoves that can now be sold in England, still emit 750 times the amount of PM2.5 per hour as a heavy goods vehicle. Such stoves also emit over 450 times more PM2.5 emissions per hour than a gas boiler.
Unfortunately, the domestic burning problem has only been worsening in recent years, with PM2.5 emissions from it increasing by 35 per cent between 2010 and 2020. People often associate domestic burning with a homely feel, with some even seeing it as more environmentally friendly than gas heating.
Luckily, those problems, too, can be addressed by sound policy.
For one, by adding warning labels to new and existing stoves stating the harms caused by domestic burning, as well as permitting local authorities to ban domestic burning on days when air pollution reaches levels that are harmful to human health, we can both protect public and go some to altering the favourable perceptions surrounding domestic burning. Exemptions would be available for the very small number of households with no alternative source of heating.
Additionally, we should mandate that only stoves compliant with Nordic emission standards for new stoves, which emit less than half the maximum emissions of PM2.5 than Ecodesign stoves do. This would further reduce the harm caused by new stoves.
Coming up with policies that successfully balance both the need to reduce air pollution and to protect the most vulnerable has so far proven challenging. However, if we want to slay the invisible killer that is air pollution, we need policies that ensure no one is left behind. Bright Blue’s new report offers ways of doing just that.