Dangers of current levels of air pollution in the UK

[Sue]

I think this is relevant to several threads in this section, but admin please move it to the lounge if you disagree.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jun/19/uk-toxic-air-killing-people-doctors-warn?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

[Angelina]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn4l927dj5zo#:~:text=The Earth could be doomed,the state of global warming.

 

related but very alarming - particularly with distraction of the middle east and how unlikely it is that Trump will pay any heed to global temperatures

 

 

[malumbu]

Air quality had improved greatly since the clean air act in the 1950s, the move away from coal to warm our houses and generate our electricity, better controls on industrial and power generation, and as controls on the internal combustion engine have progressed.  Clearly any death associated with air pollution, and whilst you can not directly attribute air pollution at typical levels to individual deaths, is concerning.  We can all do more.  Geopolitics is deeply concerning.

Edited, short term spikes in air pollution are an issue.  Most, hopefully all, vulnerable people, during severe air pollution incidents due to still still air and extreme temperatures, will hopefully be alerted.  Text alerts were introduced over ten years ago.

The UK is blessed in this concern due to geography.  Paris,for example, has far more concerns.

Ahh further edited.  Couldn't access the article earlier

This is not air pollution but climate change/crisis.  Yes this is going to fack the world.  And whilst the US and China will be the main culprits, we can and should do more at a personal and national level

 

Further edited. This article is not about the current heat wave, or the middle East.  Data that has long since been known, that if air quality was perfect then 30 k a year would still be alive.  We cannot achieve perfect air air quality as many sources are natural. And some we just have to accept.

So all of those again restrictions on private cars should think again about their anger against local authorities trying to change things.

Edited June 19 by malumbu

[Rockets]

3 hours ago, malumbu said:

So all of those again restrictions on private cars should think again about their anger against local authorities trying to change things.

Yeah @malumbu a couple more CPZs and some more journey length increasing LTNs ought to do the trick....

[tedfudge]

Said it before and will say again .. the UK cannot do it alone when it comes to climate change etc when you have countries like the USA , INDIA , CHINA ... you have some countries in Asia and India and Pakistan where their rivers are full of rubbish where they just throw it all in.. but we are being punished 

[Sue]

1 hour ago, tedfudge said:

Said it before and will say again .. the UK cannot do it alone when it comes to climate change etc when you have countries like the USA , INDIA , CHINA ... you have some countries in Asia and India and Pakistan where their rivers are full of rubbish where they just throw it all in.. but we are being punished 

Nobody can "do it alone", but that doesn't mean you don't do what you can.

[malumbu]

13 hours ago, Rockets said:

Yeah @malumbu a couple more CPZs and some more journey length increasing LTNs ought to do the trick....

Haven't you got other threads to complain about restrictions on motoring?

1 hour ago, Sue said:

Nobody can "do it alone", but that doesn't mean you don't do what you can.

Absolutely 

[Nigello]

How about doing what is necessary but not what looks extra-good on the world stage (such as fixing and hitting targets that go beyond requirements). 

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, malumbu said:

Haven't you got other threads to complain about restrictions on motoring?

To be fair @malumbu you took a global discussion down to restrictions on motoring so maybe you should practice what you preach! 😉

19 hours ago, malumbu said:

So all of those again restrictions on private cars should think again about their anger against local authorities trying to change things.

 

[malumbu]

@rockets. 

Five years of you saying the same thing. 

I'm not posting on several threads because so many of you post the same thing again and again.

I also refrain from personal comments and insults apart from the odd occasion when somebody posts something particular toxic. 

So no more on this one as you make it so difficult to have a grown up conversation.

Edited June 20 by malumbu

[Spartacus]

Air polution in London isn't just one size fits all issue. 

Recently the ULEZ reduced tailpipe emissions by a massive amount, the older Clean Air Act (1952?) Removed coal and industrial smog from London and aircraft emissions are better than ever. 

Yet winds still blow pollution in from outside Lomdon and the UK (I always hate it when the Sahara sand storms hit to emphasise how external factors impact us)  so its a global issue that needs global changes, including responsible sourcing (because its cheaper in another country we have to be aware of their policy on  pollution and the global cost of transport) along with less consumerism, none of us needs the latest tech , strawberries in December or wear once clothes) 

Sadly what Ted was alluding to is that whilst we have a role to play, its got to be a global effort and we shouldn't allow other countries to expand their pollution to fill the void we leave when cutting ours and that may mean its less likely you have everything you want when you want it. 

[malumbu]

No, most outdoor pollution is local.  The wind predominantly blows from the Atlantic doing us a favour.  Since we got rid of polluting heavy industry, moved to smokeless fuels, reduced coal burning in our homes, road transport is the main source of poor air quality.  BBQs and wood burners make a larger contribution as particles from ICE cars reduced and latter became trendy 

ULEZ has helped accelerate cleaner vehicles on our roads, differential parking fees to a lesser extent.  Although the latest diesels are very clean we have now gone too way in demonising this fuel.  Although EVs are a better solution.

Transboundary pollution is more of an issue if you are next door to a country that still has heavy industry, burns coal to generate electricity, and will be exacerbated in times of hot still weather when you can get a photochemical smog.

Climate change/breakdown/crisis  is a global issue.

Saharan sand isn't toxic.burning stubble was an issue.

 

[Spartacus]

Mal, the reference to Sahara Sand was simply to point out how something happening in one place, impacts us here 

There was no implication it was in anyway toxic 😅

[MrCheeky]

Ha

Edited June 21 by MrCheeky
WRONG PERSON

[malumbu]

23 hours ago, Spartacus said:

Mal, the reference to Sahara Sand was simply to point out how something happening in one place, impacts us here 

There was no implication it was in anyway toxic 😅

I was talking to my friend Nige about this when I was having a drink in Keston the other day.  He was concerned that this foreign sand is taking the place of good old fashioned British sand.  If he ever became King or President he would ban all this foreign sand, getting great big wind machines at the border to blow it back where it came from.

I was also talking about how much I missed the fine ash we'd get over outdoor surfaces in the autumn.  I think foreign sand may have replaced this, which we were both disgusted about.  He informed me that the ban on burning stubble was all a woke conspiracy and that was another thing he would reinstate when Emperor of the British Empire.

I can talk bollox too!

For younger readers here is an article about burning stubble https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stubble_burning  There was a lot of resistance when the ban was proposed, coming into effect, in the UK, in 1993

More relevant is the possibility of 100s of deaths due to the current heatwave.  Likely to be more common in years to come and could exceed annual deaths associated with poor air quality.

[Spartacus]

@malumbu forget burning stubble

i'll have a pipeful of what ever you are smoking at the moment 😷 

 

[DulvilleRes]

The references to the 1956 Clean Air Act are interesting. This act was brought in to improve air quality after 12,000 people died during and in the aftermath of London's 1952 Great Smog. The act was resisted by people who felt they had a right to coal fires, despite clear evidence that something had to change for the public good. It really does feel that there are parallels with today's pro-motoring lobby, many of whom profess an interest in improving air quality, but seem unable to offer any real solutions. 

[malumbu]

I try to avoid us Vs them.  But (a) those that say they care about air quality yet don't want restrictions (b) those that don't really care about air quality but use it as a reason not to have any restrictions such as measures that could lead to more traffic on main roads, frustrates me.

Thus is about smarter journeys.  That can include sharing journeys, something many are resistant against.  So less vehicles on the road.

The one that really gets me is those, still, opposed to the ULEZ. Including those that have anti ULEZ stickers on compliant vehicles.

Edited June 22 by malumbu

[Penguin68]

4 hours ago, DulvilleRes said:

The act was resisted by people who felt they had a right to coal fires, despite clear evidence that something had to change for the public good.

In so far as the Act was resisted (and I remember that smog) it was resisted by those who had no other form of heating - space and hot water - available. And we had a number of terribly cold winters around then. Most people welcomed it. Nobody who lived through the London Smog would do anything other. There were coal merchants who weren't keen, of course, but these aren't the people you were attacking to make your anti-car argument. 

[Rockets]

4 hours ago, DulvilleRes said:

The act was resisted by people who felt they had a right to coal fires, despite clear evidence that something had to change for the public good.

But don't forget it was also enacted to move or close the half a dozen coal fired power stations (like Battersea and Bankside) that were very close to the city centre and were the major cause of pollution.

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 19/06/2025 at 22:31, Rockets said:

Yeah @malumbu a couple more CPZs and some more journey length increasing LTNs ought to do the trick....

The same old nonsense. Absolutely zero evidence of LTNs or CPZs increasing pollution. A fair bit showing the opposite. 

[Sue]

20 hours ago, Rockets said:

But don't forget it was also enacted to move or close the half a dozen coal fired power stations (like Battersea and Bankside) that were very close to the city centre and were the major cause of pollution.

Both domestic coal fires and the power stations were to blame.

I remember the smog. It was awful.

 

[Spartacus]

Thank the stars for smokeless coal when it was introduced 

[Sue]

22 hours ago, Spartacus said:

Thank the stars for smokeless coal when it was introduced 

Is that still allowed?

 

[Spartacus]

No idea Sue, but it was a good solution for those who only had coal fires for heating after the cream air act was introduced. 

I grew up with a coal fire, nothing beats it for warmth but sadly thats a past distant memory now.