Thursday 11 April 2024

The Back-story behind Anti-Car Policies in the UK, Part Five: The story over the last 15 months

This is the fifth of a set of six essays. Together, they will document the back-story behind the anti-car policies, which have plagued the people of the UK, under governments of all parties, for the last 30 years and more.

I broke off the previous essay at the end of 2022. Today, I will cover 2023, and current developments in anti-car policies in my local area.

2023

In 2023, my focus on air pollution issues moved away from dissecting government technical documents, towards following developments. Now, there was a new version of the UK Air Quality Plan issued in 2023. But after the 2022 document I discussed above, I decided not to read it, on grounds of blood pressure. So, most of what I say about this year comes from newspapers or from the Internet.

ULEZ

In February, Sadiq Khan, mayor of London, trumpeted a “peer reviewed” report, claiming that the 2021 expansion of the ULEZ had had a “transformational impact” on air quality: [[1]]. But later, the Telegraph revealed that this report had been “peer reviewed” by none other than Dr Gary Fuller, a “Clean Air Champion” with the “Clean Air Programme.” Fuller was also being funded by Khan’s City Hall: [[2]]. So, this review was neither unbiased nor independent. And therefore, we must assume that neither was the report itself.

Also in February, four London councils – Bexley, Bromley, Harrow and Hillingdon – accused Khan of using “nonsense” data on air pollution deaths to support his expansion of ULEZ to Outer London: [[3]]. Khan, through a spokesman, replied “around 4,000 Londoners die prematurely every year as a result of poor-quality air, with the highest number of deaths in outer London.” This really is nonsense! OK Sadiq, show us the death certificates with “air pollution” contributing as a cause of death. Even 40 of them.

The ULEZ expansion into Outer London went into operation on 29th August, to protests from the public. A few days earlier, Khan had a bit of a brainstorm, publicly claiming that ULEZ critics were “conspiracy theorists” and “COVID deniers.” [[4]]. A typical ad hominem ploy, a frequent resort of those that have no evidence or logical arguments to back up their claims.

And yet, transport secretary Mark Harper failed to act, even to postpone the ULEZ expansion. His claims of not having the powers were laughable. If the Tories had wanted it stopped, they would have found a way. So, they must have given him orders. Harper did not help himself by calling out the expansion for the “cash grab” it is: [[5]]. Given that he knew the truth of the matter, his failure to act discredited him in the eyes of many people, including me.

Since then, “blade runner” protestors have been blocking or destroying ULEZ cameras. This was still continuing into 2024. I have recently heard about protesters, dressed as Batman, decorating the cameras with “bat boxes!” And the Reform UK candidate in the upcoming mayoral election, Howard Cox, is pledging to scrap ULEZ altogether.

In November, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) found that Khan had misled the public in his advertising about the “benefits” of ULEZ: [[6]]. The problem was that the claims were not based on actual measurements, but on modelled estimates of what air pollution would have been if ULEZ had not existed. As far as I am concerned, any “science” that includes modelling is automatically suspect. As has been proven again and again in the field of “climate science.” To try to pass off modelled figures as if they were actual data is an act of extreme bad faith. And Khan did it in at least two separate ads.

Smart Road User Charging

But ULEZ is not the only problem ahead for drivers in London. There is also the spectre hanging over their heads of “variable or distanced-based smarter road user charging.” [[7]].

Of course, the rest of us may well become victims of such a scheme in the not too distant future. Government, being the kleptomaniac it is, is looking all the time for new ways to screw out of us what little money any of us have left. But last I looked, there were no official plans for a national roll-out  along these lines: [[8]]. At least, if we can believe Jeremy Hunt, ha ha.

Glasgow LEZ

In June, Glasgow City Council, which had since 2018 had a “Low Emissions Zone” for buses and coaches, extended it to cars and vans also. In the city centre, this amounted to a total ban on vehicles that did not meet the same standards that would exempt them from the London ULEZ. There was overwhelming opposition among local business people to the scheme. And fines were draconian, starting at £60, and could rise as high as £480. That makes Sadiq Khan’s kleptomania look almost mild!

But in September, it emerged that the effect of this extension had been to increase both PM2.5 and NO2 in the zone by around 10 per cent. [[9]]. Scots Tory shadow cabinet minister Graham Simpson made an important point: “the very least the public deserve is that the environmental benefits outweigh the economic costs.” But, as far as I can see, nothing has been done to reverse the extension, or even to soften it.

The judicial review

In July, prime minister Rishi Sunak stated that he was “on motorists’ side.” [[10]]. He ordered a review of “low traffic neighbourhoods” (LTNs), which had been causing anger in many cities. (Since then, there has been a partial softening: LTNs will be allowed “only with local support.”) But ULEZ was not among the matters to be reviewed. So, this was an empty gesture. Mark Harper’s subsequent failure to act was proof of that.

Sunak made his comments in response to the rejection by a judicial review, on the previous day, of complaints made by Hillingdon Borough Council and other councils. I wrote about this review: “The omens were bad from the beginning, when the judge chose not to hear either of the two most important complaints brought by the councils. The failure to do a cost-benefit analysis, and the failure to do an honest consultation. Particularly since, as far back as January 2023, the Telegraph had accused Khan of manipulating the consultation by excluding dissenting votes.” This should at least have been investigated.

Yet, in the end, Mr Justice Swift seems to have based his decision [[11]] on small points of legality. As well as ignoring the fact that the case for ULEZ expansion has no objective foundation. This decision was what I call a “pro-establishment whitewash.” Like Climategate.

Investigative journalism

In October, investigative journalist Ben Pile issued a report which “sends a lightning bolt through Sadiq Khan’s irresponsible and dishonest claims that ULEZ expansion would ‘save lives.’” [[12]]. This concluded that “mortality statistics relating to air pollution are not grounded in strong scientific evidence, are the subject of scientific disagreement, and are underwhelming when seen from the level of the individual.” And: “Activists, politicians and some scientists, including scientific advisors, have wilfully exaggerated and interpreted and misinterpreted the mortality risk from air pollution, and failed to communicate shortcomings in the science and scientific debate to politicians and the public.” Given the trail I have exposed in this essay and the previous ones in this set, I heartily concur.

Ben Pile followed this up in November, with a report “Clean Air, Dirty Money, Filthy Politics,” exposing the money trail behind those pushing the “clean air” policies: [[13]]. It was followed up by the Telegraph: [[14]]. I myself wrote a summary of it, here: [[15]]. Particularly interesting is the funding, by billionaire and Extinction Rebellion (XR) funder Christopher Hohn, of Imperial College London, at which Kelly, Walton and Fuller are to be found doing their “day jobs.” Not to mention “Professor Lockdown” Neil Ferguson.

2024 in Surrey

Under the heading of 2024, I will cover two sets of anti-car policies, which are of particular interest to me right now. Both are projects of Surrey County Council. These projects are the Local Transport Plan 4 (LTP4) and the Vision Zero road safety scheme.

Of all the boroughs which make up Surrey, I live in the one furthest away from London. It also has the least air pollution. It is an area in which, for anyone who lives away from the valleys and the railway lines and bus routes which run along them, a car is all but essential.

By the way, I have not voted in a local election since 1971. I regard all four of the mainstream political parties (Tories, Labour, Lib Dems, Greens) as criminal gangs, that are hostile to me and everything I stand for.

I am now a member of the Reform party, looking to help them ramp up opposition to the establishment. But I have neither the inclination nor the skills to stand for election myself. And there was no Reform candidate in my ward at the latest local election last year.

UK100

But first, the little matter of UK100. This is an activist organization, which describes itself as a “network of local government leaders for cleaner, more powerful communities.” According to its web site [[16]], its members “will continue to lead the UK’s response to climate change, acting sooner than the government’s goal by making substantial progress within the next decade to deliver Net Zero.”

UK100, as shown by the “Clean Air, Dirty Money, Filthy Politics” report I referenced above, is funded through chains originating from billionaires Christopher Hohn and Michael Bloomberg, both known to be extreme climate activists. It includes several councils that are at the forefront of anti-car extremism. Like Bath and North East Somerset, Brighton and Hove, Bristol, Cambridge (and Cambridgeshire), Glasgow, Oxford (and Oxfordshire), and Portsmouth. As well as twelve London boroughs, including Hackney, Haringey and Islington.

UK100 is not the only organization of this type. For cities, there is a very similar organization called C40: [[17]]. It is a climate and “clean air” activist network of city mayors. And it is chaired by London mayor Sadiq Khan. Enough said.

Now, Surrey County Council has for some time been a member of UK100. I was reminded of this at the beginning of the year, when the Telegraph carried the following: [[18]]. Yet we the people of Surrey never asked for our councillors to join this extremist organization, and have never been given any chance to object to the council’s membership of it. I wrote to “my” Surrey councillor, reminding her that the people of Surrey have not given the county council any mandate to belong to an organization like UK100. I have not received any reply. Hardly surprising, since the only reply the woman has ever made to me over any issue was: “It will not surprise you that as a Liberal Democrat my views do not concur with yours.”

I cast my mind back to the original “Agenda 21” of 1992. Under the heading of “Meeting the urban health challenge,” it had set out that local authorities “should be encouraged to take effective measures to initiate or strengthen” a number of activities. These included “develop and implement municipal and local health plans,” and “strengthen environmental health services.” Yeah, right. This crap that is coming at us originates from the UN. And it has been coming at us for more than 30 years, since the Rio “earth summit” in 1992.

Local Transport Plan 4

The Surrey “Local Transport Plan 2022-2032” [[19]] was actually issued in 2021. But I only became aware of it last month, when I met someone who is fighting against one of its schemes. It is a big document, almost 200 pages, and hard to read except in full-screen mode.

So, initially I thought that I would concern myself with just some of the worst low-lights. In the event, I skim-read about half of it. Here are my thoughts. The document is so rambling, that I couldn’t even divide my comments into coherent sections.

“Urgent global action is needed to avoid dangerous climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions, including transport’s carbon emissions. That’s why Surrey County Council declared a climate emergency in 2019.” That first sentence is a lie. I myself have written an evidence-based de-bunk of the “climate crisis,” and had it published at “the world’s most viewed site on global warming and climate change.” [[20]]. The “climate emergency” idea is, and always has been, a total scam. Anyone that supports that scam has either failed to look at the evidence, or has ulterior motives for peddling their claptrap. Either they are morons who won’t look at the evidence and learn their lessons, or they are liars and troublemakers.

“Shift travel to more sustainable modes: public transport, walking and cycling, away from car use.” Now, I live at the top of a hill, more than a mile from, and 170 feet above, the local town centre. There are three routes between the two. Two of these are steep, and the third is trafficky. The only public transport that goes within half a mile of my home is a bus service that runs hourly at best, ends at 6-7pm, and doesn’t run at all on Sundays. It is also the only public transport in the whole area, that has a stop that isn’t down in the valley.

I used to be a cyclist – I once bicycled coast-to-coast across North America! But cycling isn’t a practical way to get around for a 70-year-old, who lives at the top of a steep hill.

I walk a lot, too. But walking is very hard work on the way back up the hill, particularly with shopping in the rucksack. I quite often have to resort to an expensive taxi! Oh, and I play the tuba. Try lugging a five-feet long, awkwardly shaped hunk of metal, weighing 30 pounds in its case, to and from the railway station down in the valley. And at the other end too.

“On average, Surrey’s air quality is better than the national average.” Yes; and in the borough where I live, air quality is the best in Surrey. So, why should I need to worry? If air pollution is a real problem today, it will show up in London. So, fix it in London. Don’t bother anyone else, unless and until it shows up as a real problem in their neck of the woods too.

“The LTP4 marks a step change for transport in Surrey, providing an opportunity to refocus and realign our transport policy to a unifying vision.” You won’t ever get ordinary people to fall in behind your “unifying vision,” unless it is a nett benefit to us. Each and every one of us. This vision sure as hell isn’t a nett benefit to me, or to others like me.

“Growing a sustainable economy so everyone can benefit.” I know what the word “sustainable” means. It means “able to endure into the future.” I also know what a sustainable economy is! It is an economy, from which no wealth is lost. The first step to making an economy sustainable is to get rid of bad political policies, stifling regulations, and wasteful bureaucracies. Let’s start by sacking all the arrogant scum that made this transport plan.

“Tackling health inequality.” “Tackling,” to me, is something done by very large men wearing rugby jerseys or American football uniforms. I am also concerned about any scheme that demonizes “inequality.” The real enemy is not inequality per se, but injustice.

“Build on behaviour changes and lessons learnt during lockdown.” During COVID, many people in my area (including me) stopped using public transport altogether. We did make, for a while, less journeys than normal. But a far higher proportion than normal were by car. For example, it was during COVID that I started driving to and from the park for my daily walk. I still do!

Policy area: “Demand management for cars.” “Altering parking supply and charges.” “Traffic calming.” “Engaging with pay as you drive developments.” “Using charging revenue to support sustainable modes.” “Pay as you drive,” by the way, looks like very much the same idea as London’s “smart road user charging.” Is it to be policed by automatic number plate recognition cameras everywhere? In my view, that would be a violation of our basic human right to privacy. Tracking people everywhere they go is, in effect, stalking them. And stalking is, rightly, a crime.

Whether or not road user charging happens at the national level, I can still hear the Ker-ching! of big heaps of cash coming in for the councils. And worse: just like ULEZ, these changes will force poorer or older people out of their (our) cars. It will very seriously damage our quality of life, and for those of us who are worst hit, will take away our mobility altogether. Moreover, isn’t “pay as you drive” already covered by taxes on fuel?

“Establishing 20-minute neighbourhoods.” Impractical for me. The two supermarkets I use most are both more than 20 minutes’ walk from my home. And 170 feet below.

“Limiting car and goods vehicle access” and prioritising other transport options. “20 mph the default speed for shopping and residential roads.” Do you not feel, again, an Orwellian boot stamping on cars and vans, and on their drivers?

“Some businesses and people who rely on car trips will be affected by the reduced convenience of car use, leading to a negative impact in the short-term.” That negative impact may be long-term or even permanent, for those people whom it causes to fall off the bottom of the transport ladder. Some may find themselves with no reasons left to live. How arrogant and uncaring are those, that want to do these things to innocent people!

“Increasing parking charges with tariffs reflecting emissions impacts.” “Increasing the cost per car journey to capture its wider impact on society.” All this piles yet more costs on people who can’t afford to upgrade their cars, when they are already suffering under a vast weight of vehicle excise duty and fuel taxes. That is extremely unjust. Particularly since the “emissions impacts,” even if there were any and they were significant at all, have been over-estimated by orders of magnitude.

“Workplace parking levies.” “Local shopping centre charges.” “Resident parking.” All this will be extremely lucrative for the councils, won’t it? Just like ULEZ. Ker-ching!

“Businesses with a significant reliance on freight and deliveries will be affected by the increased cost and reduced convenience of goods vehicle use.” And many tradesmen, too. This is simply meddling in people’s lives, and picking winners and losers, in order to harm the people, whom they have chosen to demonize.

“There will not be a case for investing in new road capacity.” Oh yes, there is. The road infrastructure in south-west Surrey is woeful. Apart from two main roads which have been improved, it has been getting steadily worse for decades. And jamming in lots of extra people makes things even worse. This does nothing at all to benefit the people of Surrey.

“Supporting behaviour change.” “We will build upon our previous successful behaviour change campaigns.” The function of governments – at all levels, including county – is to serve the people who pay for them: all of the people. Seeking to nudge us into whatever behaviour patterns are desired by an arrogant, uncaring élite is not serving the people.

I gave up at the end of section 3. It had become just too much hard work. But I had already seen enough to know that this set of policies shows its promoters up as the kind of dishonest, reckless, remorseless sods that don’t care a damn about human beings. They and their political agendas are far too prevalent in government today.

Once people become fully aware of what these policies entail, I foresee enough distress and anger among sufficiently many people, that the backlash will be monumental. The backlash against “net zero” has already begun. And the backlash against anti-car policies, I think, will soon extend from the ULEZ “blade runners” to ordinary people throughout Surrey, and elsewhere in the UK.

Vision Zero

Here is the official description of Vision Zero: [[21]]. “Vision Zero is a global movement to end traffic-related fatalities and serious injuries by taking a systemic approach to road safety. The premise of this strategy is that road deaths and injuries are unacceptable and preventable.”

The concept

My first thought was: Knowing about “Absolute Zero” and its successor “Net Zero,” I find myself very concerned about the motives of anyone that puts forward a scheme with the word “Zero” in its title. My second was: In a supposed democracy, what is any part of government doing aligning itself with a “global movement” without reference to the people?

My third was: Is total prevention actually achievable, for any activity which has an inherent risk, however small? The mathematician in me says No. For in any situation where individual trials are independent, the number of trials carried out, multiplied by the chance of a bad outcome, equals the mean number of bad outcomes that are expected to happen. Ultimately, you cannot reduce the bad outcomes to zero without reducing the risk factor right down to zero. Impossible. And that means the only option is not doing the activity at all!

So, my follow-up thought was “this is about politics, not about road safety.” After all, despite many improvements over the years, we have not managed to reduce to zero the numbers of fatalities in bus, coach, rail or air transport. Or even on bicycles. So, I thought, the whole Vision Zero ideal is a wild goose chase. You can move towards such a goal – as long as you are willing to pay the costs. But you can never achieve it, unless you ban transport altogether.

Moreover, the cost-benefit aspect has not been considered at all. Cleaner air, and less or no lives lost on the roads, might sound like good goals. But no such changes can be good if the costs to individuals in prosperity, rights and freedoms are greater than the benefits.

The Vision Zero concept is being pushed hard for UK local authorities by an activist organization, “Action Vision Zero.” [[22]]. Many local councils are adopting, or considering, the Vision Zero agenda. They include Oxfordshire, the force behind traffic barriers and “15-minute cities” in Oxford; perhaps the most anti-car council in the whole UK. Google “vision zero councils” and you will find some more: Kent, Islington, Haringey, Bath and North East Somerset, Trafford, Leeds. Many of these are also members of UK100. Transport for London and Sadiq Khan are also in on it. And it is being pushed hard in other countries, too. Again, this is politics, not road safety.

So, who (no pun intended) is the ultimate driver of this wild goose chase of an agenda? See here: [[23]]. Yes, you’ve guessed it: it’s the United Nations. And specifically, the WHO.

As to Surrey County Council, Vision Zero is being pushed by the Liberal Democrat caucus on the council. There was a consultation period, but it expired on 24th March. Even if I had bothered to put in a response, given what has happened with other “consultations” on anti-car policies, I doubt anyone would have taken any notice of it.

The detailed proposal

I downloaded and read the proposal for Surrey. I got it from here: [[24]]. The consultation, such as it was, was on the same website. The title was: “Vision Zero Road Safety Strategy 2024-2035.” Two things grabbed my attention immediately. One, that it only covers the period 2024-2035 suggests that there is more and worse planned for the future, than is apparent in this document. Two, it appears to have been produced by Surrey Police!

“Corporate objectives.” Local councils, corporate or otherwise, ought to have one, and only one, overriding objective. That is, to serve the people of their area. Which means, all the people of the area, each and every one. And to do it both to the best of their abilities, and cost-effectively.

“Our aim is for all deaths and serious injuries from road collisions to be eliminated.” As above, this goal is impossible. And even if it was achievable, how much would it cost? Not just in financial terms, but in loss of freedoms, loss of opportunities, lowered quality of life? This scheme is not serving the people. It is zealotry from cloud-cuckoo-land.

“… safe, healthy, equitable mobility for all.” Just what does this mean?

I noticed that the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) is a co-signatory of this document. This PCC is a national-level bigwig. But the remit of a PCC is: “They are elected by the public to hold Chief Constables and the force to account, making the police answerable to the communities they serve.” Allowing the police to take part in political zealotry goes directly against the PCC’s remit.

“We have set a new target to reduce fatal and serious road casualties by 50% by 2035.” This is yet another example of arbitrary, creeping, collective targets and limits, set without reference to the people who will be expected to meet them. Further, like the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, all this comes from an international agreement, the Stockholm Declaration, to which we the people have never signed up: [[25]]. An international agreement driven by the WHO, indeed.

“We will need to work together even more effectively, do some things differently, do more of the things we know that work and if necessary, implement new initiatives.” You cannot reasonably force or even ask anyone to do such things, without first securing the consent of the people. To seek to do this to us without our explicit agreement is tyranny.

“Local Transport Plan 4,” “Climate Change Strategy,” “Health and Well-being Strategy.” I never asked for my life to be micro-planned. Nor am I happy, or able, to pay for it. Get off my back.

“Shared responsibility between stakeholders… to take appropriate actions to ensure that road collisions do not lead to serious or fatal injuries.” Speaking in my “philosopher” hat, there is no such thing as shared responsibility. There are only individual responsibilities (such as acting with reasonable caution when doing something which could bring risk to others), and responsibilities which have been voluntarily taken on. Moreover, “actions,” however many or large, can never “ensure” that nothing bad happens. Risk can never be eliminated, as long as the activity causing it continues.

Besides which, I am in my 54th year of driving. During which, I have driven around 400,000 miles. In all that time, I have had only one accident above walking pace; and that didn’t injure anyone. And I know from experience that the risk of an accident is unavoidable. No matter how experienced a driver you are, no matter how safely and smoothly you drive, no matter how “appropriate” your driving actions are, when two or even three unexpected things happen in quick succession, you are in the hands of luck.

“In recent years the ongoing reduction in fatal casualties has stalled.” Chart 1 shows the “stalling” to have begun somewhere between 2010 and 2013. As I recall, this is exactly the period during which “creeping speed limits” started appearing more and more on our rural roads. They obviously haven’t worked. So, “more of the same” is not sensible.

“Target for 50% Reduction in KSIs by 2035, from Baseline Average of 2019 and 2022.” Where are the feasibility and cost-benefit analyses, that show that meeting this target is both feasible, and cost-effective for the people (both financially and in terms of freedoms, quality of life, and so on)? Almost certainly, as with net zero, these exercises have never been done.

“We will develop summary data reports/fact sheets.” Good, but they must be honest. What will happen as and when the data shows that the policies are not working?

“More flexible policy… that will facilitate the implementation of 20mph schemes… where this is supported by local people.” Which local people? Over how wide an area? How will this support be measured?

“Tackling some of the worst speeding hotspots.” That’s like “tackling” climate change – it could mean anything, but whatever it does mean is likely to be nasty. Wouldn’t it be better to “tackle” only the worst accident hotspots? Besides which, in a lot of accidents (over 90%, so I hear), “speeding” is not a factor. Inappropriate speed for the conditions can be a factor, but this is not something that can be measured using cameras alone.

“We will aim to review and replace all the 60mph national speed limit roads in Surrey with new lower limits where appropriate.” But this has been happening for years – since the early 2010s! And it hasn’t worked.

“There will be a high level of compliance with speed limits.” This will mean a high level of fines, no? Ker-ching! And penalty points, too. Will there be a police “target” for the number of drivers disqualified each month? As with ULEZ and LTP4, this is really just a combination of money-grab and destruction of freedoms.

“Enforcement operations, and media and publicity campaigns.” We’ve seen all this before, haven’t we? I’ll say again: If you need to use “nudge” and “behaviour change” techniques, that shows you have no good arguments to convince people rationally.

 “…some main roads outside the centre of towns could remain at 30mph.” This seems to imply that 20mph will become a “new norm” with only a few exceptions. Despite the protestations that this is not a blanket 20mph approach, it seems to be so in all but name.

“Specialist police teams dedicated to improving road safety.” They should be concentrating on their real job of catching criminals, not harassing people who are merely going about their daily business, have no intention of harming anyone, and are not imposing any unreasonable risks on anyone.

“Lower speeds will provide a range of benefits including… Reduced noise and air pollution.” Not so – lower speeds can worsen noise due to more traffic being in a given space, and they often increase fuel consumption. Moreover, “buffer” speed limits are both frustrating and confusing, particularly when they vary several times, or go on over long distances. And a “long-term problem with drivers speeding,” if not accompanied by accidents, may simply be because the speed limit was set unreasonably low.

Some final points

There has been an increased trend recently towards idiotically low speed limits on particular roads in Surrey. 40mph on the approach to the roundabout at the southern end of the A331, for example. If you are passing a phalanx of traffic that has come from the Tongham slip road, and want to turn left towards Guildford, then to be safe, you must stay at 70mph until you have finished overtaking them all. It’s dangerous to change speed and lanes at the same time! If the phalanx is long enough, even the very safest drivers may find themselves 75% over this (arbitrary and unjustified) “limit” as they hit it.

Moreover, low speed limits also have psychological effects, including anger. Angry people do not drive as safely as relaxed ones.

Constantly checking the speedometer causes drivers to take their eyes off the road more often, increasing the danger of an accident.  And widespread, strict enforcement of speed limits will tend to cause bunching of traffic. This is dangerous in itself, as it encourages close following distances, and tends to cause stop-start congestion. It also increases the difficulty of moving lanes when you need to.

Moreover, “traffic calming” schemes and road width reductions often take away vital “wriggle room,” requiring increased concentration on the obstacles to be avoided, and leaving less for awareness of the situation developing ahead.

All that is on top of the increase in road works. Roads today are closed far more often than they used to be. They tend to be closed for far longer. Overnight closures are commonplace. Moreover, only a week ago, the route from my home to and from the main road was closed without any warning, any signs, or any reason given at the time. And on the very day I wrote this, I got caught by a “temporary obstruction, 15-minute delay.” Right on a junction that is very hard to find an alternative route around. And with no work going on that I could see.

Drivers of electric vehicles (EVs), or new “green” petrol cars, may think they are safe from ULEZ and the like. But even they won’t be safe from the “road safety” mafia. Nobody expects the Speed Inquisition! But nobody is safe from it, either.

Yet drivers face, not only ever-reducing creeping speed limits, and ever narrower roads with more obstructions, but also ever more cameras to catch us out! That is not treating us with the respect and dignity due to human beings. It’s just another dose of Orwell’s boot.

In the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, every driver should be treated as an adult, capable of making his or her own decisions, and exercising reasonable caution towards others without needing to be locked in a straitjacket. People should not be treated as probable criminals for merely going about their daily lives.

This seems a good point at which to end this fifth essay. In the final essay of the set, I will summarize the anti-car policy situation in the UK as a whole, and draw some conclusions.

Posted by No comments:

Wednesday 10 April 2024

The Back-story behind Anti-Car Policies in the UK, Part Four: The story from 2009 to 2022

This is the fourth (and longest) of a set of six essays. Together, they will document the back-story behind the anti-car policies, which have plagued the people of the UK, under governments of all parties, for the last 30 years and more.

At the end of my second essay, I broke off the story at the end of 2008. I spent the third essay evaluating the UK government’s COMEAP (Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollution) report of 2009. This provided apparent scientific justification for subsequent policies to reduce air pollution by small-sized particulate matter (PM2.5). Yet, I found it very seriously wanting. Indeed, I did not believe its conclusions. Nor did I trust the processes that had led to them.

Today, I will return to the chronological approach, and continue the story from 2009.

2009 to 2015

2009

2009 was the year of the Lisbon Treaty. This gave the EU full legal personality. And greatly increased its powers, both over national governments and their populations. Since then, the European Commission and the EU have become steadily more and more tyrannical.

In 2009, the LAQN (London Air Quality Network) report for 2006/7 identified that the EU limit value for nitrogen oxides (NOx) was being exceeded in many places in London. Curiously, the 2008, 2009 and 2010 reports weren’t published until 2012! Also in 2009, data collection began for the report, which in 2018 would assess how effective the London Low Emissions Zone (LEZ) had been.

I have already covered the COMEAP report of 2009.

2010

In 2010, the EU’s 2008 directive on “ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe” became UK law. And new Euro 5 vehicle emissions standards were introduced. They limited PM2.5 emissions to just one-tenth of the Euro 3 limits of nine years earlier.

On the other side of the pond, the University College of Los Angeles (UCLA) attempted to fire controversial researcher James Enstrom, claiming his research failed to accord with the department’s “mission.” [[1]]. (His California Cancer Prevention Study of 2005 had come up with a risk coefficient for PM2.5 pollution, that was orders of magnitude lower than most of the other studies. And that was not the only way he had annoyed the establishment.)

The COMEAP follow-up report

The major UK report of 2010 in the air pollution area was the follow-up to the COMEAP report of 2009. It was titled “The Mortality Effects of Long-Term Exposure to Particulate Air Pollution in the United Kingdom.” It was produced on COMEAP’s behalf by the Health Protection Agency (HPA): [[2]]. It used the figures from the earlier COMEAP report to derive estimates of the “burden” of mortality due to PM2.5 levels in the year studied (2008).

It is of interest that, in between the 2009 and 2010 reports, the COMEAP committee had been augmented by four members, from 12 to 16. Among the new members was Professor Frank Kelly, then at King’s College London, and now professor of Community Health and Policy at Imperial College London. It is noteworthy that, earlier in his career, he had been a lecturer at Southampton University, where Stephen Holgate was a professor. Professor Kelly will play a key role in the story that follows.

The headline conclusion of the report was: “An effect on mortality in 2008 of nearly 29,000 deaths in the UK at typical ages and an associated loss of total population life of 340,000 life-years. The burden can also be represented as a loss of life expectancy from birth of approximately six months.” Big scary numbers, heh?

To their credit, the HPA were careful to stress the huge uncertainty in COMEAP’s risk estimate. But given my reservations about the processes which produced that estimate, I am tempted to use a phrase popular among software people: GIGO. Meaning, garbage in, garbage out. If a figure is suspect, then any further calculations making use of that figure are themselves suspect. Including the HPA report. And that goes for all air pollution calculations made since, that use COMEAP’s 2009 risk coefficients.

In any case, even using the HPA’s figures, my 2017 social cost calculations on air pollution from cars came out way lower than would have been necessary to justify the charges imposed by the London ULEZ (Ultra Low Emissions Zone).

And there’s more. Using the HPA’s assumptions, the part of the life expectancy loss that was specifically caused by air pollution from cars came out to be around 25 days. I will repeat here my reaction to this, from my original 2017 paper.

“Which would you prefer? To travel where you want, when you want, in the comfort and privacy of a fast, smooth, quiet, spacious car? Or to be granted an extra 25 days at the end of your life, and in exchange to be forced to spend your travelling life waiting at bus stops in the pouring rain or standing on freezing station platforms, and when you finally do get moving it’s noisy, rattling, uncomfortable, crowded and often slow? I know which I’d pick. Moreover, wouldn’t you spend a lot more than 25 days of your life at those bus stops and on those platforms? (Exercise for the reader: how many days is 5 minutes a day over a lifetime?)”

2011

In 2011, a UK team working on behalf of the Health Effects Institute (HEI) reviewed how much effect the London congestion charging scheme had had on air pollution levels since 2003: [[3]]. Professor Frank Kelly was the lead author. The answer to the question was, in brief, not very much.

And it was worse than that. For here is the “bottom line” from the statement made by the HEI as a whole. “Ultimately, the review committee concluded that the investigators, despite their considerable efforts to study the impact of the London CCS, were unable to demonstrate a clear effect of the CCS either on individual pollutant concentrations or on the oxidative potential of PM10.”

Two things stand out here. One, they chose to study PM10 and other pollutants such as nitrogen oxides, rather than focusing on PM2.5. And two, there was considerable overlap in personnel between this team and COMEAP. Professors Anderson and Derwent, and Dr Armstrong, all took part in both the 2009 report and this study. And Dr Atkinson and Professor Kelly, too, had been on COMEAP at the time of the 2010 report.

In 2011 too, government subsidies began for improving the take-up of ultra-low emission vehicles, and to support greener transport schemes.

2012

In 2012, there were two major events in the air pollution area. One, the standards were tightened in the pre-existing London LEZ (for commercial vehicles). Two, the Gothenburg Protocol, first agreed in 1999 to come into force in 2005, was amended and extended. It now set out emissions commitments for individual nations, which were to be reached by 2020. Some of these commitments included ceilings for both stationary and mobile sources. And it set out commitments beyond 2020, too.

The culture of arbitrary, ever tightening, collective “targets” and “limits,” that had been conceived by the EU, adopted by the UN, and supported by national politicians that ought to have known better, was now in full swing. And in Europe, the EU had become its policeman. No wonder momentum among ordinary people started building towards Brexit.

In 2012 also, the UK’s Air Quality Expert Group (AQEG) issued a report: “Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) in the United Kingdom.” [[4]]. The group included Professors Dick Derwent and Roy Harrison, both of whom had been involved in the 2009 and 2010 COMEAP reports. This report “challenges the robustness of the evidence for making future policy decisions in respect of PM2.5 in the UK context.” Is that not close to admitting that the 2009 and 2010 reports were wrong? It also says: “Sulphate particles remain important, despite the large reductions in sulphur dioxide emissions since the 1980s.” Yes, indeed. But how important?

2013

A curious row occurred in 2013 over the raw data for the Six Cities and ACS studies. The US House of Representatives subpoenaed the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for this data. But they still refused to release it. It was not until the change of administration in 2016 that independent scientists, like James Enstrom, were allowed access to versions of this data.

REVIHAAP and HRAPIE

But the main air pollution story of 2013 came from the WHO and the EU. In that year, they started promoting air pollution as a really big problem, with a project called REVIHAAP. (“Review of Evidence on Health Aspects of Air Pollution.”) The project was jointly funded by the WHO and the EU. For those interested, the full report is available here: [[5]].

The description page says: “The review concludes that a considerable amount of new scientific information on the adverse effects on health of particulate matter, ozone and nitrogen dioxide, observed at levels commonly present in Europe, has been published in recent years. This new evidence supports the scientific conclusions of the WHO air quality guidelines, last updated in 2005, and indicates that the effects in some cases occur at air pollution concentrations lower than those serving to establish these guidelines. It also provides scientific arguments for taking decisive actions to improve air quality and reduce the burden of disease associated with air pollution in Europe.” This is a clear call from the WHO to governments to ramp up interference in the lives of the people they govern, is it not?

There was a sister project called HRAPIE, “Health Risks from Air Pollution in Europe.” [[6]]. This was a review of the views of “expert stakeholders.” The description says: “The main findings of the survey are that the majority of respondents identified the general categories of ‘road traffic’, ‘space heating and air conditioning’, and ‘shipping’ as the top three emission source categories of concern associated with emerging issues for public health.”

It is also worth noting that a very popular response to the “recommendations for policymakers” question was “more funding!”

I found a most interesting presentation about REVIHAAP from a LAQN seminar, here: [[7]]. The general tone of “it’s worse than we thought,” and the incessant harping on about new or serious threats – including from nitrogen dioxide (NO2), remind me very much of the techniques that have been used by alarmists to hype the “climate change” scam. There is also one most interesting statement there. REVIHAAP “provides scientific arguments for the decisive actions to improve air quality and reduce the burden of disease associated with air pollution in Europe.” Policy-based evidence, anyone?

This level of alarm seems odd for its time. Until the Chinese smogs of late 2013, there had been no smogs causing proven serious health damage for several decades. And the recorded Asian hazes were caused by agricultural fires and perhaps by SO2 from burning coal, not by nitrogen oxide emissions, whether from cars or other sources.

But it’s worse. Some of the names I see on the list of those, who were involved in providing the scientific inputs to this project, combine to raise in my mind a big red flag.

The author of the presentation, Dr Michal Krzyzanowski, was Reviewer 3 (the one from the WHO) on the 2009 COMEAP report. And the list of participants on page 4 reads like a WHO’s WHO of government advisors on air pollution toxicology. We have some already familiar names: Anderson, Atkinson, Holgate, Kelly, Derwent, Harrison. We also have Dr Bart Ostro (Reviewer 4) and Professor Philip Hopke (Reviewer 2). We have C. Arden Pope, the lead author of the original ACS study. From COMEAP, we also have Mr J Fintan Hurley, chair of the QUARK quantification sub-group. And Dr Robert Maynard and Dr Heather Walton, both on the COMEAP “secretariat” of government employees who work with the academic experts. Walton is now a member of Kelly’s Environmental Research Group (ERG) at Imperial College. We also have Dr Ian Mudway, who was on the 2011 HEI team. And Professor Jonathan Grigg, who will feature prominently later.

Could all this be, not just groupthink, but groupthink controlled by, and spread by, the WHO? An organization that has openly stated its desire to take control of the whole world, at least in the arena of public health in pandemics? We know that he who pays the piper calls the tune. And the EU was not only a funder of these projects, but has its own groupthink too. Could it be that WHO and EU groupthink and alarmism may have infected the scientists they fund? Who then seek to confirm or amplify the scares, in order to secure further funding?

The scientific cadre in air pollution toxicology is small – smaller than in “climate science.” And many of its members have been working in it for 20 years and more. Could this, perhaps, be like the dynamics through which most climate science has been warped into alarmist activity, that has nothing to do with science? Could air pollution science, too, have become corrupted? Could it have been used simply as a ruse to “justify” bad political policies?

2014

In 2014, the main news on the air pollution front was that the European Commission, the executive of the EU, took the UK to court for exceeding nitrogen oxides (NOx) limits. They found “non-compliances” in London and South Wales in short-term exposures, and in several other areas in longer-term ones.

2015

In 2015, DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) issued a report on NOx pollution, giving a central estimate of 23,500 deaths in the year 2013, and an error range of a factor of 4: [[8]]. It was not clear how much overlap there might be with deaths caused by PM2.5 pollution. They also admitted that the previous estimates for PM2.5 may well have been high.

They also referenced a report by Dr Heather Walton (of the COMEAP Secretariat) and others, which looked at health impacts of nitrogen oxides in London. It was prepared for Transport for London (TfL). It claimed that, using coefficients based on the opinions of the HRAPIE “expert stakeholders,” deaths in London attributable to nitrogen oxides were actually higher than those attributable to PM2.5!

To me, that’s really hard to believe. Where is the historical evidence that nitrogen oxides alone can cause significant bad health effects? And if “expert elicitation” doesn’t work well to determine the confidence limits in an estimate, how can we possibly expect it to work in determining the estimate itself? Nevertheless, this report was probably what caused Euro 5 diesel cars to be included in the ULEZ charging scheme, while Euro 5 petrol cars are exempt.

In that same year, the Volkswagen diesel scandal erupted in the USA. What insiders had known since 2006 – that many diesel cars did not actually meet, in real-world driving, the standards they were supposedly built to – now became public knowledge.

Also in 2015, the Euro 6 vehicle standards came in. Cars built to this standard, even diesels, are (for now) exempted from ULEZ.

The UN’s Sustainable Development Goals

I cannot leave behind the year 2015 without mentioning the agreement of the UN’s “Sustainable Development Goals” in September of that year. The goals themselves are at [[9]]. My own, entirely negative, review of them is here: [[10]]. I described the goals as “a blueprint for the destruction of human civilization as we know it, and for tyranny by a self-appointed global ruling class over every human being alive.”

The goals include a commitment to: “By 2020, halve the number of global deaths and injuries from road traffic accidents.” That didn’t happen, did it? In the UK for one, the numbers pretty much flattened.

And: “By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management in all countries.” If I read that right, it means force us all into cities. Where we can enjoy “safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable transport systems for all, improving road safety, notably by expanding public transport.” The UN, again and again, shows itself to be hostile to personal choice in the environment in which we live our lives, including transport.

2016 to 2019

The RCP report of 2016

The major event of 2016 in the anti-car policy field was the publication of a report jointly produced by the RCP (Royal College of Physicians) and the RCPCH (Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health). It was titled “Every breath we take: the lifelong impact of air pollution.” You can find it here: [[11]].

In my 2017 social cost paper, I wrote of this report: “The chair of the RCP’s working group, Stephen Holgate of Southampton University, was also on the panel that produced the COMEAP report back in 2009… And the vice chair, Jonathan Grigg, was quoted in the mayor of London’s press release: ‘To maximise the effectiveness of this initiative, the Government must now act to remove the current toxic fleet of diesel cars, vans and buses from all our roads.’”

We have met Professor Holgate before. Professor Grigg now joins him centre stage. And I should mention Dr Gary Fuller, who was also involved in this report. Fuller is a senior lecturer in air pollution measurement at Imperial College London, and describes himself as “passionate about communicating air pollution science to policymakers and the public.”

I wrote of the RCP report: “Even the title of this report is alarmist. It has a general tone of rampant greenism and nanny-statism. And it includes the phrase ‘climate change’ more than 70 times. This is zealotry, not science.”

Here is the report’s take-home message. “…while recognising that COMEAP’s research on this issue is continuing, this report adopts a combined estimate of effect [of PM2.5 and nitrogen oxides] of around 40,000 deaths annually with an associated annual social cost of £22.6 billion (both with a range for a central estimate of ±25%).”

That figure of 40K deaths per year went viral in the media. Good theatre, eh? But I noticed two odd things about this conclusion. One, the error range is an order of magnitude smaller than the DEFRA figures it was based on. That can’t be right. Two, where are the death certificates? If 40,000 deaths were caused by air pollution in a year, then a significant fraction of them ought to specify “air pollution” as at least a contributor to one of the causes of death. And how many did? As far as I can make out, one. The 40,000 was even described by one expert as a “zombie statistic.” Every time it’s debunked, it comes back again!

Other events of 2016

Another significant event of 2016 was the publication by COMEAP of a report on chronic bronchitis: [[12]]. What it says is not particularly interesting. But the list of participants is thought-provoking indeed. The chair of the working group was Professor Frank Kelly. Professor Jonathan Grigg had been added to the list of participants. And Dr Heather Walton had been promoted from the Secretariat to the main committee.

Meanwhile, the EU had issued its National Emission Ceilings Directive. This “sets UK-wide emission reduction commitments for five damaging air pollutants, as well as obligations for the quantification and reporting of air pollutant emissions.”

In the same year, 2016, the UK government instituted a new “National Productivity Investment Fund,” which was committed to reducing emissions. And a plan was put forward to implement Clean Air Zones in “relevant local authorities in England” and in Wales. In these zones, so they said, “there will be a need to understand quickly and easily whether a given vehicle will be able to enter free of charge.”

2017

In 2017, the UK government issued two revised air quality plans. These were produced, so it seems, in response to High Court judgements. The Guardian reported on the second of these judgements here: [[13]]. The cases had been brought by an extreme activist lawfare NGO called “Client Earth.”

The first was a Draft UK Air Quality Plan for “tackling” (that word again) nitrogen dioxide: [[14]]. This lays the foundation for Clean Air Zones, charging entry fees for non-compliant cars and vans. It explicitly plans ULEZ, from the “T-charge” implemented in 2017, via the launch of ULEZ in 2019, to its extension to the North and South Circular Roads, that was to happen in 2021. So, this was something agreed on by both the Tories, in national power, and Labour, represented by mayor of London Sadiq Khan. It also introduces “low emission neighbourhoods.” And it demands “putting a significant shift towards walking, cycling and public transport use in the forthcoming Mayor’s Transport Strategy.”

It also talks of “tougher, legally binding ceilings for emissions for 2020 and 2030.” Without having asked the people, or even having a public debate! And: “In future we will need a wider range of approaches to tackling harmful air pollution.” Furthermore, it says: “The limit values are based on the World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) air quality guidelines.” But the given rationale for restricting nitrogen oxide emissions in 2017 was to meet the EU’s limits, which are considerably higher than the WHO’s. This is zealotry, not democracy.

The second, two months later, was a plan for “tackling” roadside levels of nitrogen dioxide in towns and cities: [[15]]. It is softer in tone than the earlier draft. Under “Impact on individuals,” it says: “This package of measures will support delivery of our obligations on air quality in the shortest time possible. We are clear, however, that this must be done in a way that does not unfairly penalise ordinary working families who bought diesel vehicles in good faith.” They also required local authorities to use “measures… carefully targeted to minimise their impact on local residents and businesses.”

But since 2017, the government have reneged on these commitments, again and again. ULEZ expansion to Outer London, Oxford traffic filters, and more.

One other notable event in 2017 was a letter written to then prime minister Theresa May by a pressure group calling itself “Doctors against Diesel.” [[16]]. This lamented that the draft air quality plan “failed to tackle emissions at source.” And that it had no new Clean Air Zones, and discouraged charging zones. The principal signatory was Professor Jonathan Grigg, and Professor Stephen Holgate was also a signatory. On the list also is Professor Chris Griffiths of Queen Mary University, who was also involved in the 2016 RCP report, and will appear again later in the story.

The COMEAP NO2 report 2018

In 2018, COMEAP issued another report: [[17]]. It is titled: “Associations of long-term average concentrations of nitrogen dioxide with mortality.” This aimed to derive “a new single-pollutant summary estimate” for NO2. It seems odd, to me at least, that DEFRA and others had been pushing draconian NOx reduction policies, when COMEAP had not even completed their studies of what the effects of any such reductions would be likely to be. By this time, Professor Frank Kelly was chair of COMEAP. The committee now had 20 members.

The report shows evidence of its rather confused genesis. “Policy needs have determined the focus on NO2 in this report.” “There is now stronger evidence associating health effects with outdoor concentrations of NO2.” Well, maybe; but the only evidence cited is the WHO’s REVIHAAP and HRAPIE. Not to be trusted, in my book. “We have decided against formally deriving an NO2 coefficient adjusted for effects associated with PM2.5.” But isn’t that exactly what any policy assessment needs? Maybe it was too hard to do in the timescales? Instead, they chose “to propose a reduced coefficient which may be used to quantify the mortality benefits of reductions in concentrations of NO2 alone, where this is necessary.”

Now with this report, for the first time, COMEAP could not reach agreement on its conclusions. The majority view included the following: “There is a case for an NO2 contribution of unknown size.” “If NO2 itself has a role in the associations found in studies of long-term exposure, this may reflect the aggregate effects from short-term exposures rather than additional effects of long-term exposure to NO2 itself.”

Yet, they went ahead, and gave “a summary coefficient … of the association with mortality of 1.023 per 10 µg/m3 of NO2 as an annual average.” And: “A reduced coefficient within the range of 1.006 to 1.013 per unit… for estimating the effects attributable to NO2 alone.” But: “There was substantial heterogeneity between the estimates from different studies.”

So, the NO2 contribution, if there was one, was of “unknown size.” Yet they multiplied it by some magic number, and came up with 1.023? Madness. And definitely not science.

It looks to me as if, this time round, COMEAP faced all the same issues they had faced in 2009, and more besides. They couldn’t just rely on the authority of the WHO this time round. So, the majority, led by Professor Kelly, ignored the uncertainties in their rush to produce numbers that would “justify” policies for draconian reductions in nitrogen oxide emissions.

The dissenting view

The dissenting group consisted of Professors Anderson and Atkinson and Dr Maynard. They criticized “the inadequate consideration of uncertainties.” They said: “In our view there is insufficient evidence to infer a causal association between long-term average ambient NO2 concentrations and risk of death.” If this is so, then there is no scientific basis at all for any policy to force reductions in NO2 emissions.

Moreover, they said: “COMEAP should resist the temptation to produce ‘headline’ results justified by an obligation to inform public debate when the evidence base for such calculations is limited, highly uncertain and complex.” This, I think, is the nub of the dispute. And I have no doubt at all that the dissenters are right. Such a “headline” is almost bound to lead to policies that are wrong, costly, and overall bad for the people.

The dissenters “very much disagree with estimating the burden down to concentrations lower than those contributing to the original risk estimates.” They accepted the coefficient of 1.023, not as an association with mortality from NO2 alone, but from a mixture of NO2 and a whole range of other pollutants that are always found with it; a lot of which are already accounted for as PM2.5. They said that the “high level of heterogeneity between the NO2 coefficients reported in individual studies … makes extrapolation to UK cities … subject to uncertainty.”

If I read their views right, they are saying that scientists simply don’t know enough with certainty about the risk of mortality from NO2 to draw any quantitative conclusions. I think they’re absolutely right about this. The evidence they examined does not support any method of accurately calculating the (putative) benefits in reduced mortality of NO2 reductions. Given this, it tells us nothing about the size of any such benefits. That leads me, as one who clings to the true precautionary principle and rejects the perverted version, to conclude that no policies at all to reduce NO2 emissions can possibly be justified by this evidence.

Other events of 2018

Two other events in 2018 were significant to the air pollution issue. One, the UK government founded an organization called “UK Research and Innovation.” [[18]]. They say: “We invest £8 billion of taxpayers’ money each year into research and innovation and the people who make it happen.” As of 2020, UKRI had over 7,000 staff.

Two, Professor Chris Griffiths, one of the signatories of the “Doctors against Diesel” letter, was about to publish a study, which investigated the impact of London’s LEZ on air quality and children’s respiratory health. Good for him, you will say. Now we can have some real data to chew over! Griffiths was the corresponding author; but the authors list also contains several names we already know. Mudway. Fuller. Grigg. Kelly. Here is the paper as published in the Lancet: [[19]]. The data had been collected between 2009 and 2013; a period which included the tightening of LEZ emission controls in 2012.

It is at around this time that some of the mainstream media started taking an interest in what had been going on over air pollution. In August 2023, the Telegraph revealed [[20]] that Shirley Rodrigues, deputy London mayor, had urged Professor Griffiths in 2018 to change the conclusions of his paper before publication. Professor Griffiths, to his credit, refused to do so. Perhaps, after his earlier vocal support for the anti-car cause, he had realized that his own research did not justify that position. Could it be “when the facts change, I change my mind?”

Ms Rodrigues complained: “It reads like Lez (low emissions zones) or similar have no impact at all.” The Griffiths paper does indeed say: “We found no evidence of a reduction in the proportion of children with small lungs over this period, despite small improvements in air quality in highly polluted urban areas during the implementation of London's LEZ.”

Now, this was a proper landmark. A real-world study had looked at the actual effects on health of a London air pollution limiting scheme. It had come up with no hard evidence of any health improvements due to the LEZ. And yet, political forces backing the “clean air” agenda had tried to suppress the scientific conclusions. That is suggestive, no?

2019

Not very much happened in 2019 on the UK air pollution front. Most green political activity was concentrated on the ridiculous scam of the so-called “climate emergency.” For those not already aware of that saga, I have documented it here: [[21]].

The one significant event on the anti-car front was that in April, the ULEZ came in to force in central London only. It replaced the previous toxicity “T-charge.”

2020

2020 was, of course, the year of the COVID panic. It was also a busy year for anti-car extremists in the UK.

Perhaps the most significant event of the year took place behind the scenes. The UK government’s “Green Book,” which is supposed to set out procedures for the cost versus benefit analysis of government projects, was updated. Projects deemed to be “strategic,” including “net zero” and “clean air,” in effect became exempt from all requirement for cost-benefit analysis. It is no coincidence, I think, that the review that initiated these changes began in March, right after Rishi Sunak was appointed as chancellor in place of Sajid Javid.

In July, the government held a “consultation” on the issue of “de-carbonizing transport.” I spent almost a month writing a 56-page, reasoned response, with many good arguments why nothing needed to be done at all, and everyone should be left free to choose whatever form or forms of transport best suit them and their circumstances. But all the points I, and others of like mind, made were totally ignored. This showed that the whole “consultation” was just a rubber-stamping exercise for the deep green political agenda. A rubber stamp, which they then used to pull the date of the ban on petrol and diesel vehicles forward from 2040 to 2030.

All this took place against the background of the unfolding of other parts of the green and globalist agenda. It was in 2020 that we first heard about the “Great Reset.” It was described as: “a new equilibrium among political, economic, social and environmental systems toward common goals.” In which the future is: “a globalized world… best managed by a coalition of multinational corporations, governments (including through the UN system) and select civil society organizations.” Obviously, we ordinary, honest, productive human beings have no place in such a world, except perhaps as slaves. 2020 was also the year in which the Tories unveiled their “Ten Point Plan” for a “green industrial revolution.” I have written about this here: [[22]]. One of its main thrusts was “accelerating the shift to zero emission vehicles.”

On air pollution more specifically, COMEAP issued a summary of their recommendations for the quantification of the health effects of various air pollutants: [[23]]. Dr Heather Walton chaired the working group that produced this. Of course, these recommendations were based on their earlier reports, whose reliability was suspect. They also noted that DEFRA had “chosen to risk over-estimation of benefits associated with interventions, rather than risk under-estimating them.” Thus, creating a further systemic bias in favour of policy action. As if the perverted form of the precautionary principle wasn’t biased enough already.

COMEAP also issued a report on health effects of non-exhaust pollution associated with road traffic: [[24]]. The chair of this working group was Professor Frank Kelly. Major conclusions were: “Adverse health effects are associated with proximity to traffic, traffic intensity or concentrations of traffic-related air pollutants.” “Particles from these sources could pose a hazard to health. However, it is not clear whether real-world concentrations of non-exhaust PM from road transport would have significant effects.”

In other news, a “Clean Air Programme,” managed by UKRI, was instituted. And a “Clean Air Day” was instituted, yearly in June. This is promoted by what looks like a highly activist group, “Action for Clean Air.” [[25]]. Its web page says: “The World Health Organisation and the UK Government recognise that air pollution is the largest environmental health risk we face today.” Yeah, right. You expect people to believe either of those two organizations?

2021

In 2021, the WHO issued new Air Quality Guidelines: [[26]]. The guideline for PM2.5, already low at 10 µg/m3, was reduced further to 5 µg/m3. This limit is so low, that researchers have pointed out that in many parts of the world, PM2.5 levels would exceed it even if there were no anthropogenic emissions at all! [[27]]. Even for those who are not yet cynical over the matter, this calls seriously into question the WHO’s motives in setting these guidelines.

In October, the London ULEZ charges were extended out to the North and South Circular Roads. Thus, making the region within about 5 miles of central London effectively into a “no go area” for those drivers, who cannot afford either to pay the fees or upgrade their cars.

The first Clean Air Zones were implemented in 2021, in Bath, Birmingham and Portsmouth.

A détour to reality

In November, a paper (Ma et al.) was published by three researchers from Imperial College London: [[28]]. Its title was, “Has the ultra-low emission zone in London improved air quality?” Its take home message was: “Aggregating the responses across London, we find an average reduction of less than 3% for NO2 concentrations, and insignificant effects on … PM2.5 concentrations.” That is, over the period from 39 months before the start of ULEZ in April 2019, to 9 months after it. It also said: “The ULEZ caused only small improvements in air quality in the context of a longer-term downward trend in London’s air pollution levels.”

But this was not to the taste of deputy London mayor Shirley Rodriguez. As revealed in 2023 by the Independent [[29]], Rodriguez asked Prof Frank Kelly, head of Imperial College’s “Environmental Research Group”, to issue a statement that contradicted the findings of the study. The very same Professor Kelly who has already appeared in this story several times, including as chair of COMEAP. Unlike Professor Griffiths, Kelly chose to co-operate with this political whitewashing exercise. More than any other incident, this was the one which caused me to re-examine COMEAP’s reports and processes with a far more critical eye.

Clean Air Champions

Also in 2021, a list of “Clean Air Champions” within UKRI’s Clean Air Programme was announced: [[30]]. The first name on the list? Professor Stephen Holgate, no less. And the second was Dr Gary Fuller, who had also been involved in the highly alarmist RCP report.

The About page for the Clean Air Programme regurgitates the 40,000 deaths nonsense from the RCP report. And it reveals that UKRI funds it through a “Strategic Priorities Fund.” The word “strategic” is interesting – is this why there hasn’t been any cost-benefit analysis?

The home page is even more interesting. “Our community of engaged researchers and scientists enable the UK to address these challenges and effect change where it is needed, whether through policy, behavioural change, or legislation.” Nasty stuff: they’ll be setting the “nudge unit” on us pretty soon! … Oops, Surrey County Council is already doing that. As you’ll see in the next essay.

Environment Act 2021

And then there was… this: [[31]]. “A Bill to make provision about targets, plans and policies for improving the natural environment; for statements and reports about environmental protection; for the Office for Environmental Protection; about waste and resource efficiency; about air quality; for the recall of products that fail to meet environmental standards; about water; about nature and biodiversity; for conservation covenants; about the regulation of chemicals; and for connected purposes.”

There is an overview of the act’s provisions here: [[32]]. I suggest you take a sick-bag with you. “The most ambitious environmental programme of any country on earth…” “The Act requires the Sectary of State to set at least one long term target in each of the four key priority areas: air quality; biodiversity; water; and waste. This will be achieved by a set of measures targeted at UK businesses and supply chains.” “The Act set a legally binding duty on the government to bring forward at least two new air quality targets by 31 October 2022.” This is exactly the kind of crap that so many of us voted for Brexit in order to get away from!

To seek to improve the “natural” environment is all very well and good. But not if the costs to us human beings are greater than the benefits. It is as if the madmen currently in charge of the “ship of state” have set something they call “the natural environment” up on a pedestal, like a deity. And they want to force us to worship it. While, at the same time, they are trashing our environment – the environment we human beings need in order to live happy, fulfilling lives. A vital part of which is the freedom to make our own choices and decisions, in transport and in all other areas of life; provided, of course, that we take full responsibility for the effects of our actions on others around us.

So, where are the proposals for improving the human environment? Where are the “targets, plans and policies” towards what we human beings really need? World-wide peace? Objective justice? Upholding our human rights and fundamental freedoms? Maximum freedom to make our own choices and decisions? Prosperity for all who earn it, and continuing human progress? Now, that would be an “environment bill” worth having.

But what we have is completely the opposite. Those that promote, support, make or enforce bad green policies like these are showing themselves for what they are – enemies of humanity. I call foul on this anti-human bill, and on all those involved with it.

UK Air Quality Report

Lastly for 2021, in September 2022 DEFRA issued a “UK Air Quality Report” for that year: [[33]]. The only “exceedance” of the PM or NOx limits (presumably, the same limits previously set by the EU) was in annual mean of NO2, in 10 regions out of 43. But looking at the figures more closely, the problems are restricted to three places: London, Glasgow and South Wales. For most pollutants, the comparison of actual concentrations with EU limits is actually not that bad. And that’s if you accept the EU limits as valid in the first place. When have any of us been allowed to vote for or against such limits?

The report mentions that the 2018 National Emissions Regulations set emissions reductions commitments all the way out to 2030. But these were forced on us by an EU directive – exactly the kind of crap so many of us voted for Brexit to get away from! We’re still waiting for the “bonfire of the regulations” that we voted for.

And yet, the maximum annual mean for PM2.5 is now planned to be down to 10 µg/m3, the 2005 WHO “guideline,” by 2040. We badly need to get away from the WHO, too – and not just for pandemic reasons. We need WHOexit, if not also UNexit as a whole.

The Chemical Hazards and Poisons Report 2022

In 2022, there was so much going on in the general political arena, that my eye was “off the ball” on air pollution for most of the year. But one interesting, and very strange, document did come inside my radar range. This was a report from the UK Health Security Agency (HSA), titled “Chemical Hazards and Poisons Report,” and dated June 2022: [[34]].

The sub-title is “Reducing health harms associated with air pollution.” The document is described on the introductory web page as follows: “This special edition provides an overview of the UKHSA Cleaner Air Programme and describes recent work to build the evidence-base, improve awareness and understanding, and influence and support stakeholders to take action to improve air quality and health.”

About

The section “About the UK Health Security Agency” (at the end) describes the remit of the agency. “UKHSA is responsible for protecting every member of every community from the impact of infectious diseases, chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear incidents and other health threats.”

I also found out that the HSA was only formed in 2021, out of the “health protection” part of the failed former Public Health England (PHE).

Foreword

The Foreword is written by David Rhodes, Director of Environmental Public Health Transformation at the HSA. Transformation? That sounds like United-Nations-speak to me. And it’s undemocratic. I, for one, do not need or want to be “transformed.” And I know I’m not alone in this. But we have never had any chance to say “no” to UN-imposed policies.

It gets worse. David Rhodes is a member of the Sustainable Development Special Interest Group at the Faculty of Public Health (FPH) of the Royal College of Physicians (RCP). The FPH [[35]] is “a membership organisation for over 5,000 health care professionals” and a registered charity. The RCP, of course, showed its alarmism in the 2016 report, produced by a working party chaired by Professor Stephen Holgate, whom we met earlier.

Here’s an example of the kind of stuff the FPH and Rhodes get involved with: [[36]]. ULEZ consultation submitted. Non-proliferation fossil fuel treaty. Advocacy working group. Engaging with COP27. Climate Change and Litigation Toolkit. Greener NHS.

On this evidence, these are a bunch of rabid, activist green fanatics. And a director-level government employee hobnobs with them? That isn’t in the interests of us the people, is it?

Clean Air Programme

The rest of the document covers a series of subjects. The first chapter is about the Clean Air Programme. The Clean Air programme is led by the Met Office [[37]] and NERC [[38]]. NERC, the Natural Environment Research Council, is part of UKRI (UK Research and Innovation), which funds the Clean Air Programme through a “Strategic Priorities Fund.” It describes itself as “the driving force of investment in environmental science.” And the Met Office needs no introduction, particularly to those who follow the “climate change” issue. Its blaring protestations of “the hottest day, or week, or month EVAH!” come so often, that the only sane response to them is laughter. They almost always prove to have been wrong. And even if they are right, that signifies nothing. The world has been warming for at least 350 years.

One of the authors of this chapter is Dr Karen Exley, who not only was on the working party for the 2016 RCP report, but has also been on the Secretariat of the Committee on Medical Effects of Air Pollution (COMEAP) for pretty much all its work since 2010. Exley is at the University of Leicester, where her bio describes her as “national lead for UKHSA’s strategic priority programme on Cleaner air.” [[39]].

Some interesting tidbits are provided about the Air Quality and Public Health (AQPH) group within the HSA. “The AQPH team has a unique role sitting at the interface between academia and policy, where it is well positioned to achieve the long term aims of the programme.”

These “long term aims” include: “Improving awareness.” “Understanding and encouraging behavioural change at all levels.” “Influencing and supporting stakeholders to take action to reduce the burden of health of air pollution and address health inequalities.” Is this serving the people, as government ought to? No; this is deep green activism. They take our money, and use it to work against our interests. That is very bad faith, and I call foul on it.

Mortality burden estimates

The section “Updated mortality burden estimates attributed to air pollution” is authored by Exley, Dr Heather Walton whom we met in the previous essay, and two others, Ms Alison Gowers and Dr Christina Mitsakou, both of whom have been in the Secretariat on several COMEAP publications. Now, it looks as if these are all but permanent positions. For the document says that the UKHSA AQPH team “provides the scientific secretariat for” COMEAP. And that “Based on COMEAP’s advice the UKHSA has updated mortality burden estimates due to air pollution.” So, this is what the HPA, that played a significant part in the 2009 and 2010 COMEAP reports, has morphed into.

It reports that COMEAP had recently increased its risk coefficient for long-term exposure to PM2.5 from 1.06 to 1.08. COMEAP also recommends that “quantification can be carried out to very low PM2.5 concentrations by assuming a log-linear shape for the concentration response function.” (Where is the research that justifies these assumptions?) As a result, the estimated mortality burden of air pollution appears to have gone up between 2013 and 2019! Even though actual pollution concentrations went down over that period. What a cunning way to try to make out a case that “it’s worse than we thought.” And why should anyone want to extrapolate to concentrations lower than anything we’ve seen in more than 200 years?

It looks as if all the protestations of Professors Anderson and Atkinson and Dr Maynard have been ignored. Not only that, but they have increased their risk coefficient, without giving any justification! Strange, given that DEFRA had said in 2015 that even the 1.06 value was probably an over-estimate.

To me at least, COMEAP is no longer credible as a source of scientific advice. All its past work should be independently, objectively, honestly and critically reviewed, with proper cost-benefit analyses from the point of view of the people. And any policies its work spawned, that are found not to be a nett benefit to the people, should be struck down.

Air pollution targets

Gowers, Mitsakou and Professor Frank Kelly wrote the section on “Setting air pollution targets under the Environment Act 2021.” Kelly is the former chairman of COMEAP, who co-operated with London deputy mayor Shirley Rodrigues in trying to whitewash research done by some of his very own fellows at Imperial College London.

This section includes: “COMEAP advised that the recent evidence suggests that continuing to reduce PM2.5 concentrations as much as possible would benefit public health.” And: “COMEAP’s view was that reducing exposure of the whole population would achieve the greatest overall public health benefit.” Oh, how great that sounds! But at what cost?

“Important points from the advice were that, in order to maximise benefits to public health, the targets should include a focus on: (1) Reducing long-term average concentrations of PM2.5. (2) Reducing exposure of the whole population. (3) Continuing to reduce exposures even where concentrations comply with a ‘limit value’ type target.” Aha, that must be why they want to extrapolate down to lower and lower concentrations. If we let them do that, they will never lack an opportunity to “justify” a new, tighter “target” or “limit.”

Well, there you have it. Exposed in black and white for all to see. This is not about solving a health problem – even if current levels of air pollution actually did constitute such a thing. It is about screwing us human beings. Screwing each and every one of us. Screwing us harder and harder. And carrying on screwing us again and again and again. I am reminded of George Orwell’s famous “boot stamping on a human face – forever.” But this is more like “a boot stamping on a human face harder and harder – forever.”

Air quality in Wales

The section “Air quality in Wales: an update on policy and practice” talks of “the need to embed the positive changes in travel behaviours that resulted from COVID-19 to support longer term ambitions to reduce air pollution.” Odd, that. I, for one, went almost everywhere by car during COVID. Like many others, I did not use public transport due to the infection risk. Even though I had already had, and recovered from, COVID before the first lockdown.

It talks of “new targets for particulate matter which account for WHO guidelines.” This is yet another case of shifting goalposts, prompted by the UN’s World Health Organization. It talks also of “a pledge to cut the default speed limit from 30mph to 20mph where people live, work and play.” Well, now our Welsh friends know where that idea came from!

Some other sections

The section “Air quality research in the … Health Protection Research Units” is authored by, among others, Exley and Rhodes. A section on “The effect of fragrant products” is co-authored by Professor Anna Hansell, whose bio at the University of Leicester (the same place as Exley) lists her as the current chair of COMEAP. Exley is also a co-author of the section on “UKHSA involvement in UKRI Clean Air Programme research networks.”

Global Action Plan

But the proverbial “cake” is taken by the section titled “Health professionals are vital in the battle against air pollution.” The author is “Director of Clean Air” for an outfit called Global Action Plan: [[40]]. This is “an environmental charity working towards a green and thriving planet, where everyone can enjoy happy and healthy lives within the Earth’s limits.” And they “mobilise people and organisations to take action on the systems that harm us and our planet.” What is anyone in government, which is supposed to be serving us the people and bringing a nett benefit to us, doing consorting with megalomaniacs like these?

Well, there you have it. The cat is out of the bag. Now we can all understand, from their very own words, what kind of zealots we are up against. Which seems as good a juncture as any to end this particular essay.


Posted by No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)