In London鈥檚 clean-air fight, is burden falling too much on working class?
| Dagenham, England
Michael Andersen works out of his聽hulking, white Ford Transit van. It is roomy and robust, and he couldn鈥檛 deliver furniture or work in logistics without it.
Unfortunately, Mr. Andersen鈥檚 office on wheels puts out too many emissions for London鈥檚 ultra-low emissions zone (ULEZ), which was extended this year to include his working-class borough of Dagenham, nearly an hour east of central London.
鈥淚t鈥檒l cost me 拢250 [$319] a month just to be able to drive my van,鈥� says Mr. Andersen, explaining that driving a noncompliant vehicle in the ULEZ calls for a 拢12.5 ($16) daily fee. 鈥淏ut I鈥檒l just have to drive it until I can afford a new van. I have to work, and I can鈥檛 use public transport.鈥�
Why We Wrote This
A story focused onIn London, efforts to clean the air have become politically weaponized. But the electoral calculations mask real societal issues, such as whether antipollution burdens are falling too heavily on those who can鈥檛 afford to pay for it.
Until recently, the ULEZ was just a spot in London鈥檚 public transit-heavy city center. But in August, it was expanded to wrap in all of London, including its transit-poor outer areas. Pointing to the聽4,000 annual premature pollution-related deaths that should be 鈥渞eversed,鈥� London Mayor Sadiq Khan said that emission-producing vehicles being driven and parked where people live was a key cause. 鈥淐lean air is a right, not a privilege,鈥� he said.
But those who couldn鈥檛 afford to upgrade their vehicles were suddenly unable to drive to work, run errands, or visit family without paying that fee. And even though 9 out of every 10 vehicles were聽estimated to be ULEZ-compliant, the policy became a political football in a highly publicized by-election to fill former Prime Minister Boris Johnson鈥檚 seat.
It鈥檚 a phenomenon that鈥檚 happening all over Europe with public health or climate change policies. The lesson learned, say policy experts, is that changes must be well communicated, fair, and properly funded, or they can become a public relations disaster and even work against their original goal.
鈥淚t鈥檚 an issue of domestic and international solidarity, intergenerational solidarity, etc., to do everything we can to mitigate against environmental catastrophes,鈥� says Jon Cruddas, a Labour Party member of Parliament whose district includes Dagenham. 鈥淏ut it must be a just transition. ULEZ is an illustrative example of the dangers intrinsic to addressing some of the environmental challenges we face. Unless we handle it creatively and make sure that it doesn鈥檛 fall disproportionately on those least equipped to deal with it, then it could upend precisely what we want to achieve.鈥�
鈥淚t could ensure we are unable to meet this global and domestic challenge because we lack the agility to make sure that we can take the poor with us.鈥�
Clean air becomes contentious
Public health policies weren鈥檛 typically controversial, says Gary Fuller, an air quality scientist affiliated with the Imperial College London. 鈥淭hose of us in the air pollution arena didn鈥檛 really face the systematic misinformation and disinformation that prevails in the climate arenas,鈥� he says. 鈥淲e didn鈥檛 have people out there who are evidence deniers. That鈥檚 changed tremendously.鈥�
Road traffic accounts for most of the nitrogen dioxide emitted in British towns and cities; cars bring pollution straight to where people live; and air pollutants have been linked to asthma, cardiovascular disease, dementia, and other ailments, .
More than 300 low-emissions zones have been put in across Europe with little fanfare, says Dr. Fuller. And studies show local communities have benefited, with reductions in heart and circulatory problems, and fewer admissions to hospitals.
Yet there鈥檚 a cost-of-living crisis, and societies are more polarized and unequal than before, creating an environment where antipollution efforts can become unpopular quickly and weaponized by politicians. That鈥檚 what the Conservative Party did in the Uxbridge by-election, says Bob Ward, policy director at LSE鈥檚 Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. It was worried about dropping poll numbers and also felt pressure from聽fringe climate change critics on its right, and so attacked the ULEZ as a Labour policy聽鈥� despite it originally being a plan announced by Mr. Johnson when he was mayor of London.
In addition, the ULEZ has raised questions about who should bear the brunt of its cost. Health- and climate-related policies are typically based on 鈥減olluter pays鈥� principles to incentivize people to change their behavior, says Mr. Ward. With the ULEZ, the idea is not to collect money, but to spur owners of polluting vehicles to upgrade to cleaner ones.
But Mr. Ward says that the burden of the ULEZ has fallen too heavily on working-class vehicle owners who are struggling to make the needed upgrades. Even with a trade-in payment implemented by the London mayor鈥檚 office, the maximum subsidy was only 拢2,000 for cars and motorcycles, and there were all kinds of exceptions that vehicle owners found confusing and exclusionary. (Larger vehicles like vans do get a larger trade-in payment, which was increased in August.)
鈥淭here was no pushback against the original ULEZ,鈥� says Mr. Ward. 鈥淭he public will support policies if they think they鈥檙e fair, and fair means you help people do the right thing. You don鈥檛 force them into an impossible choice. Against a backdrop of high prices, with people particularly on low incomes struggling with the cost of living, it would have been smarter for government to properly subsidize.鈥�
The social justice angle also complicated the rollout of the ULEZ, says Tim Dexter, policy manager of Asthma and Lung UK, a British charity. Air pollution impacts poor people more, as they are more likely to live near major thoroughfares and industrial sites.
鈥淭hese schemes do work, but we need to be a lot more honest across the spectrum about the amount of support that鈥檚 required to be able to do this,鈥� says Mr. Dexter. 鈥淲e need a fair transition. We鈥檝e got the solutions, we know the tools, and it鈥檚 been done elsewhere in the U.K. and other countries. And tackling air-pollution impacts is the first line of the battle against climate change.鈥�
鈥淚t鈥檚 just ill-thought out鈥�
Back in Dagenham, commuters file out of the subway station and wait in bus lines on a Monday afternoon.
Almost everyone has an opinion about the ULEZ. This working-class neighborhood sits about a 50-minute metro ride east of central London. Ford Motor Co. moved a plant here back in the 1930s, and for a time Dagenham was home to Europe鈥檚 largest car plant, a British weapons manufacturer, and other industrial sites. Today it has in London.
Many locals don鈥檛 own cars, but some do. Spencer Landers, a railway worker, says he occasionally drove an older neighbor to the grocery store who couldn鈥檛 immediately upgrade his car. 鈥淗e鈥檚 had to scrimp and scrape all his savings. I鈥檝e took him down about a mile and a half to where he does his shopping,鈥� says Mr. Landers. 鈥淗e鈥檚 just retired and he鈥檚 had to try to piece together whatever money he can to get a new car.鈥�
Terry Goodes was happy to call the ULEZ and the London mayor a few choice expletives. The retired carpenter is recently widowed and has thought about getting back to work. But coming up with the money to comply with the ULEZ might put up a roadblock.
鈥淢ost working-class people are at the brink of what they can do financially, you know?鈥� says Mr. Goodes. 鈥淚t鈥檚 just ill-thought out. The cost of living and generally the state of things聽鈥� and this just didn鈥檛 help. It鈥檚 as black-and-white as that, really.鈥�
