Sadiq Khan expands the Ulez scheme across London. Credit: Yui Mok/PA
Sadiq Khan's office tried to discredit and The Telegraph may reveal the «silence» of scientists who found his Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez) policy had little effect on pollution.
In private emails seen by The Telegraph, Shirley Rodriguez, London's Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy, told Professor Frank Kelly she was «very disappointed» that Imperial College released findings that cast doubt on Ulez's effectiveness.
Professor Kelly, director of Imperial's environmental research group, who has been paid more than £800,000 by Mr Khan's office since 2021, has agreed to release a statement, written in part by Ms Rodriguez, saying that Ulez helped » dramatically reduce air pollution.”
The London Conservatives said the correspondence revealed an «alarmingly cordial relationship» between City Hall and the scientists it funded, as well as a desire to «silence scientists who doubt the effectiveness of Khan's policies.»
Professor Kelly's colleagues said that support their research «100 percent», but The Telegraph understands that the consequences have had a deterrent effect, and they are unwilling to publish further work on this issue.
A study by the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, published in Environmental Research Letters in 2021, found that the introduction of Ulez in 2019 reduced nitrogen dioxide emissions by less than three percent and had little effect on ozone and particulate matter.
Peter Fortune, a member of the London Conservative Assembly for Bexley and Bromley, two districts opposed to Ulez expansion, said: “It is unacceptable that Sadiq Khan and his deputy conspire to silence legitimate research because it would damage the reputation and authority of the mayor. /p>
“Sadiq Khan claims that he simply follows the science, but uses scientific advisers to protect his interests. Science relies on open and transparent debate.»
Expanding Ulez
Since 2021, Mr Khan's office has paid Imperial's Environmental Research Group at least £802,958, including a payment of £45,958 for a report on » the future health benefits of the mayor's air quality policy», which was widely cited by the mayor, despite the fact that it was not peer reviewed.
Claire Colin Smith, leader of the Bromley Council, said: «When scientists are paid for their research, it justifiably leads to questions being asked about the results sought by those who commission the work.»
p>
«Indeed, as recently as last fall, we ourselves directly challenged Imperial's methodology and the findings of some studies, and the disclosure of these emails has seriously reinforced these concerns.»
>
Emails released pursuant to freedom of information requests show that Ms. Rodriguez wrote to Professor Kelly on November 16, 2021, complaining that Sky News, The Times, and The Mail were conducting a «misleading» study of Ulez, which was published by Imperial College.
Ms. Rodriguez thanked Professor Kelly's team for trying to stop Imperial Press from releasing the study and said she was «deeply concerned» about the damage the study is doing to City Hall and Ules.
p>
She added: “Is there anything you can do or advise to help us fix the situation? I would really appreciate any support.»
Professor Kelly responded by saying that he was «totally dismayed» and «looking at internal options to make up for it.» He said he would be «very happy to provide the Greater London authorities with the support they need to mitigate the damage.»
Professor Kelly sent a review statement to Ms. Rodriguez, initially saying that the mayor's actions «cumulatively do a lot of good for the city.» She responded by crossing out the word «collectively» and adding that the mayor's plans «drastically reduced London's air pollution.»
Re: Ulez study
Claire Paul Osborne, leader of Harrow Council, which opposes Ulez expansion, said: » These sly emails raise important questions about the scientific basis for the Ulez expansion. I have long believed that this expansion would have a very limited impact on air pollution, but come at a heavy cost to the poorest and most vulnerable motorists.”
The emails also show that on February 14 this year, the Greater London Authority (GLA) approached Prof. Kelly to complain about an article in the Telegraph reporting uncertainty about air pollution death figures widely cited by Mr. Khan based on Prof. Kelly's research.
The GLA offered to create a «friendly interview» for him with the «very supportive» David Lammy, Labor MP for Tottenham.
Professor Kelly warned at the time that «Imperial's press office doesn't want us to directly contradict the Telegraph article» but said that «as always, I'm happy to fight back.» He also asked the mayor's office to provide him with a «form of words» with which he could challenge the article.
Re: Urgent — reply to Telegraph article
Clerk Baroness O'Neal of Bexley added: “These results confirm everything we knew in that the data used to justify Ulez's extension was wrong. Ulez's expansion has always had more to do with the Mayor of London's pursuit of income than better air quality for the people of Bexley.»
Professor Kelly admitted on The Leader's Evening Standard podcast on April 17 that his research has paid off. for the mayor, will give Mr. Khan «useful ammo» to push his Ulez expansion.
Professor Kelly wrote to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak on June 6, arguing that politicians «don't believe the science» about air pollution. The six signatories were part of the Imperial Team, but they did not disclose that they were funded by the mayor's office.
A spokesman for Mr Khan said: «That's right — and it's standard practice in government.» – that we hire research experts to keep us informed about our work.
“Frank Kelly and the Environmental Research Group at Imperial are among the world's leading academic air quality institutions. It is normal and right to work with these experts to ensure that our policies are as effective as possible in addressing issues such as the high number of deaths (up to 4,000 per year) associated with toxic air in London each year.
Ulez's analysis , conducted by Imperial's engineering department, paints only a partial picture, ignoring the full lifecycle impact of the circuit and focusing only on its immediate post-launch impact. Academic experts often disagree on how other academic research is interpreted, as was the case here.”
The Telegraph has reached out to Imperial College for comment.
Свежие комментарии