Dangers of current levels of air pollution in the UK

[Earl Aelfheah]

The Mayor deserves credit for pushing ahead with ULEZ in the face of some pretty hysterical opposition, including in the right wing press. It took political courage to stick the course and it's had a hugely positive impact.

He's also done a lot to improve road safety, again in the face of some strong opposition from similar quarters.

Many politicians would have wobbled and perhaps reversed direction. It shows real leadership to do what's right and not just what's easy.

Edited October 7 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

And he's done this 200 years early...wow he is a miracle worker! 

Anyone got the figures for how PM2 is doing in comparison because surely that must have seen similar progress....or was this not just of the mayor's doing....;-)

[malumbu]

Scroll up and I gave you the link to the 200 years comment.  I'd appreciate your views on the reference as I know you like going into the detail 

Also where we were and where we are on PM2.5 and the sources.  I expect predominantly non-transport.

[Rockets]

@malumbu the 200 years comment from Carlton's article seems to be about the combined Nox and No2 and particulate matter (PM₁₀, PM_2.5)

_{Carlton wrote:}

_{London does not meet legal limits for noxious gases and sooty particles and, at the current rate of improvement, the city won’t achieve international “clean air” standards for another 193 years.}

Then when I looked at the report and I cannot find where is calls out 193 years for No2 specifically - there is a line but it is not clear in what context it is being used. Interestingly, and as an aside, the research points to the proliferation of motorbikes and mopeds as one of the reasons London air quality was not falling as quickly as in Paris.

All I found was this within the report and it is not clear whether the 193 year comment is in relation to NO2 alone or the combined NO2 and PM:

Trends in NOX, NO2 and particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5) for 2005–2016 in background and roadside locations; and trends in traffic increments were calculated in both cities to address their impact. Trends in traffic counts and the distribution in Euro standards for diesel vehicles were also evaluated. Linear-mixed effect models were built to determine the main determinants of traffic concentrations. There was an overall increase in roadside NO2 in 2005–2009 in both cities followed by a decrease of ∼5% year−1 from 2010. Downward trends were associated with the introduction of Euro V heavy vehicles. Despite NO2 decreasing, at current rates, roads will need 20 (Paris) and 193 years (London) to achieve the European Limit Value (40 μg m−3 annual mean). 

 

Am I missing something?

[Earl Aelfheah]

The 200 years figure is nonsense reporting. From what I can tell, it's based on this paragraph in the research:

Quote

Despite the recent downward trends, both Paris and London are still a long way away from attaining the NO2 ELV which was set for 2010. To place current rate of progress in context, based on trends between 2010 and 2016, roads in Paris will still need between 4 and 20 years (average of 10) to attain the ELV. For London's roads this is between 2 and 193 years (average of 21) 

They've taken the highest possible estimate (193 years) based on trends for NO2 between 2010-16 continuing without interruption and being projected out. Needless to say this is sensational / disingenuous reporting by Forbes, not a fault of the research (in which the figure is contextualised properly).

Regardless, it’s clear the ULEZ has had a hugely positive impact.

Edited October 8 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

@Earl Aelfheah I agree but not just nonsense reporting - is anyone not concerned that the Mayor's office has then repeated this claim as part of their press release - is no-one in the Mayor's office doing any fact checking? This is utterly, utterly misleading and the Mayor has put his name to it and has been amplifying it.

https://www.london.gov.uk/london-meets-legal-limits-toxic-no2-pollution-first-time-almost-200-years-earlier-predicted

[Earl Aelfheah]

It doesn't surprise me. This is what press offices do (kindly, one might call it spin). It's why you should take newspaper stories and press releases (from not just the mayor, but anyone) with a pinch of salt and look to good (ideally peer-reviewed, academic) sources. 

I agree that it's disappointing, but also seems to be fairly standard PR behaviour.