Don't you want clean air?

ULEZ or you'd rather not?

As traffic restriction policies such as Ultra Low Emission Zones (ULEZ) and Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) are imposed throughout Britain, people have been taking to the streets with placards to warn their neighbours of the potential dangers of these policies. They are often met with a question from those in favour of restricting both themselves and others; “don't you want clean air?” This predictable and programmed inquiry demonstrates a superficial level of understanding of the measures that is a cause for concern.

The question implies that opponents of the traffic restrictions possess a level of idiocy that prevents them from seeing the self-evident, to the point of being capable of inadvertently causing their own suffocation, as well as that of their peers. Social etiquette usually requires that we credit one another with at least the intuitive intelligence to preserve our own lives (although admittedly this faith has been sorely tested over the past three years).

The question posed is laden with an accusation of stupidity in that clearly everyone capable of elementary discernment would choose cleanliness over filth as a matter of course and particularly in matters of essential sustenance such as air, water, food, habitat or clothing. If cleanliness is next to godliness then only the ungodly would object to a paying a daily toll of £12.50 to the deities in the pantheon of government so that they might clean the air.

Inherent in the question is an unquestioning acceptance of the official reasoning that restrictions on movement are intended to clean the air, that they are the only means of doing so, that they will be successful, and that the air is so dirty as to warrant such extreme measures to clean it.

None of these premises are beyond dispute unless there are accepted foundational assumptions that the state in its infinite wisdom is always correct, that it always operates in the public's best interests, and that to question such notions is the preserve of the imbecile. After the lethal debacles of lockdowns and their attendant (supposedly) medical interventions it should be clear that these assumptions are not always foolproof or fail-safe. In short, the question “Don't you want clean air?” translates fairly accurately as an advocacy for traffic restriction that states, “It's for your own good.” This is the habitual assertion of the tyrant.

The idea that the air is now so dirty as to require impositions on our freedoms in order to effect its cleaning, is contested by the fact that most of us manage to breathe it quite regularly without any apparent adverse consequences. The air has been much dirtier over the past couple of centuries, notably when city dwellers laboured under pea-souper smogs, and more recently, when cars expelled fumes from leaded petrols. Interestingly, desired improvements in air quality were not achieved by increased surveillance and restricting free movement.

The idea that Low Emission Zones are intended to combat pollution is undermined by the fact that those with the money to pay the charges are free to pollute to their hearts' content. It is the poor whose movement is impeded. Those unable to pay the tolls are forced to circumnavigate the designated zones, thereby lengthening their journeys and increasing their contribution to pollution levels.

Mayor of London Sadiq Khan has claimed that scientists say that thousands of Londoners, including vulnerable youngsters, are at risk from lethal exhaust fumes. He has argued that “In outer London, where the ULEZ currently doesn’t go to, there are far more deaths where air pollution has a causative impact; 4,000 premature deaths more in outer London. Poorest Londoners are suffering the worst consequences. So that’s why it’s really important we understand this is an issue of social justice.” These claims are contested by an information request from the Office of National Statistics. It returned a report of just one death in England and Wales in the twenty-one years between 1st January 2001 and 31^st December 2021, in which an association with pollution was recorded on the death certificate.

As the ULEZ continues to expand, the Conservative Woman points out that where there is poor air quality in London it is limited to localised 'hotspots,' some of which fall “within the existing ULEZ, so it’s implausible the scheme’s extension will have a noticeable impact on air quality there.”

Yet London Mayor Sadiq Khan, “has no plan to address the pollution hotspots in London, areas where health is most likely to be affected and likely to be inhabited by the poorest Londoners. The Mayor has not used his planning powers to block a multi-story development of 500 student units at Hanger Lane gyratory in west London, one of the worst pollution spots in London, seeming unconcerned that so many people should live in such a dirty location. “

Why is his concern for the welfare of his constituents and the cleanliness of their air absent in this instance?

On the subject of the efficacy of the ULEZ, analysis by the Conservative Woman of official figures pertaining to London relates that,

“NO₂ will fall about 1.25 per cent on average and particulate levels by 0.1 per cent (yes, that decimal point is in the right place). That means the ULEZ will reduce the number of polluted attributable deaths by between 4-50 a year (0.1 per cent and 1.25 per cent of 4,000), or increase average life expectancy by between six hours and two days.

When one has to make so many assumptions to arrive at an answer to a question that is so small, you know that the real number is either zero or so tiny that it may as well be zero.”

Those who change their cars to electric vehicles will ostensibly reduce their emissions. In effect they transfer their contribution to overall pollution to the power station that provides the electricity, to the mines that provided the precious minerals essential for the technology in their cars, and to the disposal of the batteries in landfill. There are concerns that the greater weight of electric vehicles will lead to an increase in air pollution due to forces on their tyres.

Drivers of electric vehicles become dependent on an electricity infrastructure that is not fit for this purpose, dependent on foreign power, and to which access can be controlled.

Researchers from the National History Museum sent a letter which outlines some of these challenges to Baroness Brown, who chairs the Adaption Sub-Committee of the Committee on Climate Change.

“The letter explains that to meet UK electric car targets for 2050 we would need to produce just under two times the current total annual world cobalt production, nearly the entire world production of neodymium, three quarters the world’s lithium production and 12% of one year’s total annual production of mined copper.

A 20% increase in UK-generated electricity would be required to charge the current 252.5 billion miles to be driven by UK cars.”

The researchers highight similar problems in the construction of ‘resource hungry’ solar panels and wind turbines.

Is it possible that current levels of car travel are not intended to continue?

Those people who are no longer able to run a car economically may find themselves dependent on public transport. London commuters will find that the car they abandoned for the greater good drove through much cleaner air than is provided on the underground. In 2019 a “report by the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants revealed that the air within the London Underground (or ‘the Tube’) is 30 times more polluted than the air surrounding London’s busiest roads.” A study in 2023 also highlighted the dangers of poor air quality on the subway system.

Why is attention not focused on providing clean air for commuters on the tube?

Even if we accept the premise that measures are necessary to clean the air above ground, are there other means of doing so that do not involve surveillance check-points and the denial of free passage on the public highway? Could catalytic converters be improved? Could other fuels be utilised? Hydrogen fuels have been mooted and trialled, and synthetic and sustainable fuels are being explored.

Including a £110 million scrapping scheme for older vehicles, a quarter of a billion pounds has been invested in the ULEZ. The Commons Transport Committee found that the switch to electric cars will create a £35 billion shortfall. Why is so much money being expended on these unpopular policies instead of other options that allow for continued freedom of movement?

Those people who look beyond the narrative that the state seeks to save us from poisoning ourselves, see the traffic restrictions as the latest step in the construction of the infrastructure of the surveillance state. Checkpoints and cameras are being erected which can then be used to control people regardless of their method of travel, be it by car, cycling or walking.

This is made explicit in a 2019 report from the Centre for London commissioned by C40 Cities. C40 cities describes itself as “a global network of nearly 100 mayors of the world’s leading cities that are united in action to confront the climate crisis.” It is chaired by London mayor Sadiq Khan.

The plan proposes that “The Mayor of London ...should develop options for a new distance-based road user charging scheme, with a view to introducing the first version by the next mayoral term,“ in 2024.

This would involve charging“drivers per mile” with rates depending on “vehicle class and emissions.”

There is a proposed 'City Move' app which would be,“a single transport platform that allows users to compare, plan and pay for journeys across the full range of modes.”

This means it would not be limited to car travel but be “an account linked to the individual, not the vehicle,” ensuring “that everyone that contributes to congestion and pollution pays, rather than just those within the narrow boundary of the current schemes.”

“It would be integrated with the rest of the transport system, comparing the costs and impacts of taking the bus, tube, train, car-sharing, taxi hailing, bike hire, cycling, walking, etc.”

The app would incorporate, “user registration, journey planning and payment, satellite navigation for journey verification and roadside cameras for added enforcement.”

A further clue to the trajectory of the current restrictions is provided by the suggestion that, “the multimodal user platform could also create a system of Mobility Credits” – “that could be used to reward certain choices or to encourage changes in travel behaviour,” -much like a nascent social credit system.

The report states that the introduction of ULEZ and traffic restricting schemes will, “help improve concentrations of roadside pollutants, particularly NO2. However, these interventions will have little impact on particulate matters emissions because they are not expected to significantly reduce overall car usage.” The proposals of the report are intended to achieve that reduction in car usage.

Those who ask the question, “Don't you want clean air?” assume that people who oppose the ULEZ are guilty of ignorant and short-term thinking, and that they have not developed the faculties to evaluate the supposed long-term environmental benefits against immediate inconvenience. The question implies that the issue is binary, but it is possible to desire clean air and to be opposed to the advance of tyranny under the guise of virtue.

It is difficult to credit that a government that pays scant attention to unusually high excess death figures cares about the air that people breathe. Further doubt about the government's concern for the well-being of the population is generated by struggles for healthcare and GP appointments that continue across the country quietly and unaddressed.

The state that is so concerned about public well-being due to the cleanliness of our air does not seem so concerned about the air containing increasing levels of EMFs, or the potential effects of 5G or geoengineering, or the pesticides used on food and by councils in parks. The government has in recent years actively lowered minimum food safety standards. If there is a genuine desire to clean the air perhaps some other activities need addressing?

Is it possible that rather than seeking to clean the air the government is seeking to install a surveillance grid to control public movement? The locally implemented plans of the C40 cities organisation align with those of the UN’s Agenda 2030 and the WEF’s Great Reset. These seek to reshape society through top down edicts, limiting public movement and ownership. If there was a motivation in these groups for greater control over the population, what narratives would they adopt to manufacture consent and neutralise resistance? Whether or not it is accepted that such a motivation exists it must be expected that all powers ceded to authority will be used (and mis-used) to the fullest possible extent.

The traffic schemes can be seen in a broader context. The phasing out of cash and government plans for digital currency could give the state power over how and when people spend their money. The WHO treaty that will be adopted if member states do not opt out, will allow the WHO to declare health crises, and over-ride the powers of national governments. It will give the WHO the authority to enforce testing, tracking, quarantines, and proof of medical treatment. In the UK the new laws limiting protest and the online safety bill have raised concerns about government over-reach with regards to free speech both in public and online. All these measures could be reinforced by the surveillance network being installed in the service of the traffic restrictions. Although the argument is often made that cell phones already record our moves and habits, these can be disposed of, and clearly more stringent initiatives are necessary or they would not be being imposed.

It is noteworthy that fear of the content of the air was used to drive the restrictions of the covid era which sought to push the populace towards digital tracking and certification. Again people were asked to consider themselves as environmental polluters and their movement was curtailed.

Without nuance or context, the direct answer to the question “Don’t you want clean air?” is clearly “yes.” Whilst we all want clean air, other and perhaps more salient questions, are not so pithy. The balance of risk is not necessarily between the current air quality and the securing of the promised limited improvements. Are any such changes worth the price of the wider social consequences? Do we want to accept the construction around us of a sterile open-air digital prison? Or would we prefer to risk continuing to move freely?