People are protesting the Ulez expansion due in August. The Low Emission Zone (Ulez) has nothing to do with air pollution, Boris Johnson said when the mayor of London was accused of misleading the public about its health benefits.
Mr Johnson , the mayor's Labor mayor's predecessor at City Hall, said Ules was designed to fill a black hole in Transport for London (TfL) finances, not to save lives.
The controversial tax will be extended from 29 August and will charge a daily fee of qualifying cars in all areas of London.
The scheme will affect around 10% of vehicles and Mr Khan has repeatedly said it will save lives because 4,000 Londoners die each year from air pollution.
But Mr Johnson, whose constituency in Uxbridge will affected by the zone later in the year, said it was «never intended» for the London suburbs and should be stopped.
“This has nothing to do with improving air quality. It's all about Khan's disastrous inability to manage TfL's finances,» he told The Telegraph. “How can it be right that the Khan can impose this tax on working people who have not been given a word or opportunity to raise their objections?
“This scheme was never intended for outer London and will affect my constituents and many others . Khan must be stopped.”
Ulez 1803 postcode map
This was because Mr Khan, who had been Mayor of London since 2016, was accused of misleading the public regarding the health effects of air pollution in an attempt to justify a scheme that is being challenged in court by London Councils.
The numbers he gave about pollution deaths are based on Imperial College modeling, which says that pollution accounts for 70,200 years of life lost each year, equivalent to 4,100 deaths or 17 life years per person.
But critics have called the numbers misleading, saying that any effect of air pollution is small and largely outweighed by increased life expectancy.
Together, the campaign team calculated that pollution shortens each person's life by an average of 68 hours. Londoners every year, and life expectancy increases by an average of 73 days a year.
The Telegraph has learned that City Hall paid nearly £46,000 for Imperial's report, which was not peer-reviewed.
The Advertising Standards Authority has also asked TfL for proof that Ulez will help clean poor quality air after 370 people complained that the scheme's ad was misleading.
'Policy should be proportionate'
Ben Pyle of Together said: 'No one is against clean air, and it's only right that politicians should consider ways to minimize pollution. But the policy must be proportionate and based on solid evidence.
“Air pollution, in the worst case, does not lead to death, but slightly reduces the rate of increase in life expectancy. The air in London is the cleanest in centuries, and Londoners' life expectancy has risen in the car age.»
Together's data also shows that in London's boroughs struggling with expansion, the average number of days lost due to for pollution — if it is the cause — is one of the lowest in the capital.
The people of Bromley would lose 42 to 50 hours a year but gain 73 days, bringing the net gain to between 71.25 and 70.92 days. Similarly, the average resident of Bexley would lose 52 to 53 hours, Harrow 34 to 41, Hillingdon 41 to 50. Government reports warn against using death estimates as they can mislead the public.
It argued that the Ulez scheme risked hurting the economy, which plays a much larger role in health and life expectancy than pollution, with a linear effect of increased life expectancy seen between incomes of £15,000 to £35,000 a year.
On the contrary, there is no association between areas with higher life expectancy and lower levels of air pollution, in part because young people tend to live in highly polluted urban areas and older residents in less polluted remote areas.
Imperial modeling is based on the methodology outlined in the report of the Committee on Medical Exposure to Air Pollutants, which states that it is important that «cautions and uncertainties» in estimates are «clearly communicated». Some authors of committee reports warn against publishing death estimates at all.
A minority opinion of three scientists, including Professor Robert Maynard, Head of Air Pollution at the Department of Health between 1990 and 2011, states: “We consider it highly likely that the calculation of the burden of mortality is based on long-term average NO2 concentrations, despite the above caveats. would mislead the public into believing that exposure to long-term average environmental NO2 concentrations is causally associated with an increased risk of death.” saying that it would be wrong to divide the years of life lost by the entire population of the area, because some people are at greater risk than others.
It said, for example, that people with cardiovascular disease would shorten their lives by pollution much more than healthy adults.
«Air quality analysis is absolutely reliable»
An Imperial spokesperson said, «The methodology for this independent report was based on peer-reviewed literature and recommendations from an expert committee, which is common practice for this kind of non-journal publication.»
However, the college did not was able to explain to The Telegraph how he calculated 4,000 deaths.
A spokesman for Mr Khan said: «It's a shame that some groups, including climate change deniers and conspiracy theorists, are now denying evidence from scientists to justify their opposition to clean air policies.»
Air quality analysis. used by City Hall is completely reliable and is based on the most accurate scientific study of human losses from bad air conducted by world-renowned experts from the Imperial College London Environmental Research Group using the same method recommended by the government.
“Extremely disappointing that a small minority of people refuse to accept definitive proof that toxic air is indeed a matter of life and death. Nearly 4,000 Londoners die prematurely every year due to air pollution.
“The Ulez system has been proven to work and its expansion across London will allow another five million Londoners to breathe cleaner air. Sadiq refuses to sit back and do nothing to protect the health of Londoners and will continue to pursue his plans for cleaner air in all parts of London.”
Свежие комментарии