LAQ0003

 

Written evidence submitted by Clean Air in London

 

 

Introduction

 

  1. Clean Air in London (CAL) submits this memorandum to the Public Account Committee’s (PUBACCOM) inquiry into ‘Tackling local air quality breaches’ which closes on 20 June 2022.  Thank you for inviting submissions. The announcement of PUBACCOM’s inquiry can be seen here: https://committees.parliament.uk/work/6744/tackling-local-air-quality-breaches/.

 

  1. CAL’s mission is to achieve, urgently and sustainably, full compliance with the World Health Organisation’s (WHO’s) air quality guidelines throughout London and elsewhere. CAL is a not for profit company limited by guarantee, registered in England and Wales, with number 7413769. Further details about CAL can be found at https://cleanair.london. It was founded in 2006.

 

  1. Simon Birkett, CAL’s Founder and Director, spent four years as the Air Pollution Stakeholder on the High-Level Intergovernmental and Stakeholder Advisory Group for UNEP’s sixth Global Environment Outlook (GEO6). The GEO6 report, published in 2019, was the United Nations’ most comprehensive report on the global environment since 2012. Simon also Chairs the Knightsbridge Neighbourhood Forum which produced the first ‘made’ neighbourhood plan in Westminster in December 2018.

 

  1. CAL is independent of any government funding, has cross-party support and a large number of supporters, both individuals and organisations. CAL provides a channel for both public concern and expert opinion on air pollution. 

 

  1. CAL is keen to give oral evidence to PUBACCOM’s inquiry if invited to do so.

 

Executive Summary

 

  1. CAL is responding to all three questions asked by the Inquiry.

 

  1. CAL considers it odd that PUBACCOM’s enquiry and the related (excellent) Report by the National Audit Office (NAO), published on Friday 17 June 2022, focus largely on nitrogen dioxide (NO2) when Defra is missing and set to miss targets and binding legal obligations on many air pollutants (and should be mobilising action and resources, including government funding, on those too):

 

https://www.nao.org.uk/report/tackling-local-breaches-of-air-quality/

 

  1. That is not to say that NO2 is not an important problem and may not become a greater one again (e.g. if hydrogen is used to extend the lives of gas appliances) but Defra also admits to exceeding targets or limits for nickel, benzo[a]pyrene and the long-term objective for ozone. These obligations relate primarily to the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 and the UK Air Quality Strategy 2007. These are concentrations.

 

  1. In addition, Defra is failing to address obligations under the National Emissions Ceiling Regulations 2018 (NECR) including to 2025, 2030 and annually. These are emissions.

 

  1. CAL encourages PUBACCOM not to ‘accept’ the 2020 (and likely 2021) outcomes on emissions and concentrations (as showing compliance) which were heavily affected by the COVID-19 lockdowns and hid significant ongoing problems and trends in certain emissions (e.g. wood and biomass burning and ammonia) and a likelihood of exceedances in 2022 and beyond as activity levels return to normal.  Furthermore, this is a crucial year for Defra’s ambition level, when it sets targets under the Environment Act 2021 and produces a new National Air Quality Strategy (for concentrations) and National Air Pollution Control Programme (for emissions).  This year is also the 70th anniversary of the Great Smog (5-9 December 1952).

 

  1. CAL would like to see the inquiry balance its focus on NO2, where Defra passes much of its responsibility for solutions to DfT and National Highways, with an equivalent focus on other pollutants and emissions for which Defra has (almost) sole responsibility for solutions such as ammonia and wood burning. 

 

  1. CAL fears that PUBACCOM’s current inquiry could otherwise perpetuate the UK’s focus on the ‘old’ (but important) problem of NO2 without addressing other pollutants, the urgency of action needed and emerging problems. The latter group includes Defra’s lack of plans and action and reluctance to communicate the dangers of air pollution to the public.

 

  1. CAL therefore urges PUBACCOM to broaden and deepen its inquiry and ask the NAO to produce a supplementary report to address the issues raises by CAL in this important year for action on ‘air’.

 

  1. CAL strongly believes that many of the UK’s air pollution and climate action problems could be fixed quickly if the Government implemented Baroness Jones’s Clean Air (Human Rights) Bill, which topped the ballot, to enshrine the human right to clean air precisely and explicitly in UK law.

 

Question 1: Whether the government’s programme to tackle breaches of local air quality is well set? Plans and programmes.

 

  1. Air pollution is the largest environmental health risk in the UK. 

 

  1. The loss of biodiversity and climate change caused by greenhouse gases pose an existential threat to our way of life and millions of people. Homes and buildings are responsible for producing approximately 78 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions in a city like London (paragraph 9.2.1 of the London Plan 2021).

 

  1. The Government’s plans, spending and action, or lack thereof, to tackle air pollution need to be seen in the wider context of: ‘One air’ (i.e. local air pollution and greenhouse gases); legal and other obligations (e.g. the need to comply with the latest World Health Organisation air quality guidelines and follow the Climate Change Committee’s advice); needing to consider ambient and indoor air quality; underlying trends (e.g. ammonia, wood and biomass burning and ex-COVID); emerging risks (e.g. ultrafine particles, ozone and possible negative consequences arising from the UK’s net zero strategy (e.g. the use of hydrogen)); needing to include lifestyle solutions alongside technology (by making the political costs of inaction exceed those of action); needing whole-of-government action; and needing to build public understanding of the dangers of air pollution with advice for people on protecting themselves and reducing pollution for themselves and others. All these issues need urgent action.

 

  1. CAL calls for ‘One air’ thinking and has coined ‘the London Principle’ which states:

 

We must think of ‘One air’. All obligations to reduce air pollution must be met. Any trade-offs between climate change and air quality should be made in an explicit and transparent way e.g. through the application of the London Principle. This states that a 1% disbenefit in greenhouse gas emissions (e.g. increase in CO2 emissions) should be accepted when there is an associated benefit of 10% or greater in air quality terms e.g. reduced emissions of particulate matter or oxides of nitrogen (and vice versa).

 

This principle could be used as a basis for resolving disagreements between Departments and expediting action.

 

  1. CAL appreciates that PUBACCOM’s inquiry is focused on ‘local air quality’ not ‘climate change’.  However, in terms of ‘One air’ and wider obligations, CAL emphasises the need to consider the wider climate context. For example, Defra’s plans seem oblivious to key advice from the Climate Change Committee. After seven months of highly constructive correspondence with the Chris Stark, Chief Executive of the Climate Change Committee, the CCC confirmed to CAL its advice to “that government should not support wood-burning stoves as part of climate policy and that their use should be phased out over time”. One of its advisory groups recommended “Eliminate home installation of new wood-burning stoves by 2030” and “All urban wood-burning stoves eliminated by 2050.”  See:

 

https://cleanair.london/app/uploads/CAL-429-and-422-CAL-Update-re-CCC-and-wood-burning_Updated-221221-V3.pdf

 

https://cleanair.london/health/ban-domestic-wood-burning-in-urban-areas/

 

https://cleanair.london/app/uploads/CAL-429-CCC-covering-letter-reply-211221_EIR-UK-Health-Expert-Advisory-Group-Report.pdf

 

https://cleanair.london/app/uploads/CAL-405-CCC-letter-to-CAL-June-21.pdf

 

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2021-12-07/88604

 

Defra has no plans to address these important issues.

 

  1. In terms of legal and other obligations, CAL points PUBACCOM to four zones (of 43 in the UK) exceeding the target value for nickel, three zones exceeding the target value for benzo[a]pyrene and 40 exceeding the long-term objective for ozone (set for the protection of human health) and 16 exceeding the long-term objective for ozone (set for the protection of vegetation) (based on the AOT40 statistic). These obligations relate to the Air Quality Standards Regulation 2010 and the UK Air Quality Strategy 2007.

 

https://cleanair.london/app/uploads/air_pollution_uk_2020_Compliance_Assessment_Summary_Issue1.pdf

 

https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/library/annualreport/

 

Please don’t accept excuses that ozone is hard to control. France and Switzerland impose speed limits on motorways when ozone episodes are expected or underway.

 

  1. In addition, Defra is failing to address its obligations under the National Emissions Ceiling Regulations 2018 (“NECR”). The UK exceeded the ceiling for ammonia (NH3) in 2020 (noting that it is applying for a technical retrospective exemption after failing to implement measures to reduce emissions from urea fertilisers and manure from agriculture) and had been expected to exceed the ceiling for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) until COVID-19 intervened. It is also expecting to exceed the national ceilings for NH3, oxides of nitrogen (NOx), sulphur oxides (SOx) and PM2.5 by large margins in 2030 (with important intermediate targets in 2025 and annual ceilings applying before and after that).  See pages 40 and 41:

 

https://cleanair.london/app/uploads/NECR-2022_2203151456_GB_IIR_2022_Submission_v1_150322_Pages-40-and-41.pdf

 

  1. It would seem odd if PUBACCOM ‘accepted’ the 2020 (and likely 2021) outcomes on emissions and concentrations (as indicating compliance) given these were heavily affected by the COVID-19 lockdowns. These disguised significant ongoing problems and trends in certain emissions and pollutants (e.g. wood and biomass burning and ammonia) and a likelihood of exceedances in 2022 and beyond as activity levels return to normal.  Furthermore, this is a crucial year for Defra’s ambition level, when it is due to set targets under the Environment Act 2021 and produce a new National Air Quality Strategy (for concentrations) and National Air Pollution Control Programme (for emissions).

 

  1. The Government’s Clean Air Strategy 2019 (CAS 2019) set out national measures for reducing key pollutants to meet statutory emissions ceilings i.e. the NECD and NECR 2018.  This was linked to the National Air Pollution Control Programme which was published in April 2019.  These should not be confused with Defra’s Air Quality Strategy 2007 which set out policies with respect to the assessment or management of air quality and which includes standards and objectives for local air quality.  The Government is reviewing the AQS 2007 is and says it will publish a revised strategy in 2023:

 

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2022-03-14/139246

 

  1. In many cases the CAS 2019 set high level aims or ambitions or identified problems which have not been turned into plans, followed through on and/or resolved. Two good examples are urea and wood burning:

 

7.4.2 (page 71) We will regulate to reduce ammonia emissions from farming.  We will: 1. Introduce rules on specific emissions-reducing practices including….

 

It then listed five policies. None of which have been implemented (to CAL’s knowledge).

 

6.3.2 (page 59) Ensuring only the very cleanest stoves can be bought and installed. Second paragraph:

 

These emission limit requirements for solid fuel appliances will need to be coupled with an effective approach to testing. Measuring emissions of particulate matter from wood stoves is a recognised challenge and Defra is working with industry sectors and test houses to review different methods for testing stove emissions to determine what test methods are most reliable.

 

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2021-12-09/90320

 

  1. As a result of an accident of history, the annual mean limit for particulate matter PM10 is twice the World Organisation’s air quality guideline while the corresponding limit value for NO2 was set at the air quality guideline.  Please note that PM2.5-10 is ‘coarse’ not PM10. As a result, NO2 has received most of the legal and media attention i.e. because the standards were more challenging to achieve.

 

  1. The Government should have been setting its plans to comply with the WHO’s old air quality guidelines (2005) and should now be setting them to comply fully with the new guidelines and good practice statements (e.g. ultrafine particles) published on 21 September 2021.

 

https://cleanair.london/hot-topics/new-who-air-quality-guidelines/

 

  1. CAL would also point PUBACCOM to the need to address sources of secondary as well as primary emissions and concentrations of PM2.5.  See article titled ‘Ammonia from farms behind 60% of UK particulate air pollution – study’ dated 4 November 2021:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/04/ammonia-from-farms-behind-60-of-uk-particulate-air-pollution-study

 

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abf8623

 

Please note that the NAO’s recent report refers in Figure 1 (page 17) to sources of primary emissions of PM2.5 i.e. it omits the large contribution to secondary concentrations of PM2.5 from ammonia.  Separately, please note re coarse PM as mentioned earlier (Figure 3 on page 21).

 

Question 2: The progress government has made in delivering this programme and what has been spent? Implementation.

 

  1. CAL has highlighted above a number of areas where Defra has not had a sufficient programme in place to comply with its wider obligations.

 

  1. There are signs of problems in a number of recent Defra statistical publications on emissions and concentrations:

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/emissions-of-air-pollutants

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/env01-emissions-of-air-pollutants

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/env02-air-quality-statistics

 

For example, trends in relation to wood and solid fuel burning:

 

Since the late 2000s, annual emissions have fluctuated year-on-year because significant decreases in emissions from some sectors are largely offset by increases in emissions from wood burning in domestic settings and by solid fuel burning by industry (particularly the use of biomass).

 

Domestic combustion is a major source of PM emissions in 2020, accounting for 15 per cent and 25 per cent of PM10 and PM2.5, respectively. Most emissions from this source come from burning wood in closed stoves and open fires. In the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, coal use in domestic combustion was the largest source of particulate matter emissions; coal now accounts for a very small proportion of emissions from this source (14 per cent in 2020). The use of wood as a fuel accounted for 70 per cent of PM2.5 emissions from domestic combustion in 2020. Emissions of PM2.5 from domestic wood burning increased by 35 per cent between 2010 and 2020, to represent 17 per cent of total PM2.5. emissions in 2020.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/emissions-of-air-pollutants/emissions-of-air-pollutants-in-the-uk-particulate-matter-pm10-and-pm25

 

  1. Defra seems to have dismissed or glossed over to the NAO its failure to address ammonia and wood burning (page 7):

 

Ammonia emissions have remained broadly stable since 2007 which Defra told us was due to difficulties it has experienced in influencing agricultural practices such as fertiliser use.

 

Defra told us that there are practical and behavioural challenges to reducing emissions of particulate matter, including because of the potential impact of increased energy prices on domestic wood burning (paragraphs 1.12 and 1.13).

 

Where would the UK be on NO2 if DfT, National Highways or the Mayor of London had made such excuses?

 

  1. CAL spent a year investigating the wood-burning stove industry and found many problems or raised many important questions. CAL’s finding can be seen here:

 

https://cleanair.london/app/uploads/CAL-429-and-422-CAL-Update-re-CCC-and-wood-burning_Updated-221221-V3.pdf

 

https://cleanair.london/app/uploads/CAL-432-Update-re-Ecodesign-Regulations-291221_Final.pdf

 

https://cleanair.london/hot-topics/clean-air-in-london-exposes-cosy-world-of-the-wood-stove-industry/

 

  1. CAL commissioned an opinion by Counsel on Defra’s expected failure to comply with the NECR 2018 in 2020 and beyond as part of its legal action contemplated against Defra in 2021.  CAL would be pleased to share this unpublished opinion and covering letter with PUBACCOM which was sent to Defra on 20 January 2022. Please say if you would be willing to accept them.

 

  1. CAL is concerned that even where Defra has a programme in place, it has failed to implement it or implemented only weak or ineffective parts of it e.g. the NAPCP on NH3:

 

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2021-12-15/93691

 

  1. As far as CAL is aware, Defra has not sent a media release to environmental journalists or weather reporters warning them about an air pollution episode since 20-21 April 2011 when doing so coincided with the breach of the PM10 daily limit value for the whole year and resulted together in front page media coverage. A forensic investigation by CAL has exposed systemic failures on Defra’s approach to public communications. See:

 

https://cleanair.london/app/uploads/CAL-398-Daily-Express-220411-re-Smog-alert_Easter-2011.pdf

 

https://cleanair.london/app/uploads/CAL-398-Ella-Roberta_Warning-the-public-about-air-pollution-episodes_210421.pdf

 

https://cleanair.london/health/clean-air-in-london-statement-in-relation-to-inquest-into-deaths-of-three-sas-soldiers/

 

  1. Please see Defra’s comments on the impact of COVID-19 on NH3 and PM2.5:

 

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2022-03-11.138268.h&s=geraint+davies+ammonia#g138268.q0

 

  1. CAL is concerned that arguments between the DfT and Mayor of London on TfL refinancing are harming London. CAL would like to see the DfT impose requirements for Emissions Based Road Charging and investment in active travel to close the funding and action gap.

 

  1. Lastly, it seems that least has been achieved in areas where Defra has sole responsibility and greatest authority e.g. ammonia and wood burning.

 

Question 3: How government is managing ongoing risks to tackling breaches of air quality? The future.

 

  1. As the NAO has highlighted and CAL has explained above, the government is a long way from having the necessary plans and programmes in place to tackle air pollution holistically and/or take action to comply with its current and future obligations. 

 

  1. Worse, the government does not even seem to have allocated the right responsibilities, provided adequate resources or managed the processes and outcomes to date. Some of these problems go back to 2010 or earlier so they are not solely the fault of the current government.

 

  1. CAL is deeply concerned that Defra is proposing currently to set its main air quality target under the Environment Act 2021 for PM2.5 to 10 ug/m3 by 2040 when this should be achievable by 2030 or earlier (almost everywhere with exceptions dealt with as currently by Directive 2008/50/EC):

 

https://consult.defra.gov.uk/natural-environment-policy/consultation-on-environmental-targets/

 

https://www.cleanairfund.org/resource/the-pathway-to-healthy-air-in-the-uk/

 

https://www.uk100.org/publications/yes-we-canz-local-leaders-delivering-clean-air-and-net-zero

 

https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/research/aqeg/publications

 

Please note that CAL is concerned that Defra’s exposure reduction target is likely to make ‘blue skies bluer’ for rich people.

 

  1. Please see AQEG’s recent reports or publications including the ‘Chair’s summary of PM2.5 modelling result workshop’ (18 November 2021) which concludes:

 

Whilst 2020 was clearly a very unusual year for air pollution emissions due to the COVID-19 pandemic, an annual average PM2.5 limit value of 10 ug m-3 or higher would have been achieved across the UK, including central London. This would be valuable contextual information for decision-makers when set alongside the assessments based on different future emission scenarios.

 

CAL comment: The outcome in 2020 excludes the impact of the Net Zero pathway, the impact on sales of the ban on sale of petrol and diesel cars from 2030 and many other measures such as those recommended by CAL – never mind the action required on ammonia and wood burning.

 

https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/assets/documents/reports/cat09/2205061251_PM2.5_Modelling_Results_Workshop_Chairs_note.pdf

 

‘Ozone in the UK – trends and future projections’:

 

https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/library/reports?report_id=1064

 

  1. In looking to understand the problems, issues going forwards and potential solutions, CAL points PUBACCOM to the European Commission’s analysis and well-advanced thinking on the need and approaches to tightening requirements on air quality:

 

https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/air/air-quality/revision-ambient-air-quality-directives_en

 

  1. Furthermore, the European Commission has undertaken considerable research into the problems and what has worked and what has not (including the Fitness Check). In particular, see section 6.6: Some lessons learned (page 86) of the Commission Staff Working Document: Fitness Check of the Ambient Air Quality Directives (28 November 2019):

 

Specifically, this fitness check identifies several lessons learnt to be considered in the follow up to this fitness check, including the below:

 

…trends in exceedance levels for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) indicate that limit values have been more effective in facilitating downward trends than other types of air quality standards, such as target values – especially where this has been done in conjunction with an exposure concentration obligation requirement and national emission reduction targets as established under the NEC Directive; [CAL emphasis]

 

https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/cd69a4b9-1a68-4d6c-9c48-77c0399f225d/library/0667d82d-2519-49cf-aa4b-2f8886379c4d?p=1&n=10&sort=modified_DESC

 

CAL encourages PUBACCOM to learn from the lessons above. Most important, we need continuity and tightening of health, legal and environmental protections. Limit values are most effective.

 

  1. On communications, it seems Defra has no plan to consult publicly on its findings and proposals to improve communication of air quality risks to the public:

 

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2022-01-12/102540

 

  1. Defra’s continued reluctance to warn the public about air pollution episodes and more generally is unacceptable.

 

https://cleanair.london/app/uploads/CAL-398-Ella-Roberta_Warning-the-public-about-air-pollution-episodes_210421.pdf

 

https://cleanair.london/app/uploads/CAL-398-Daily-Express-220411-re-Smog-alert_Easter-2011.pdf

 

  1. The Government needs to address existing and emerging risks across several timescales including annual, 2025 (NECR2018), 2030, 2035, 2040 and 2050.  CAL considers the latter to include indoor air quality, ultrafine particles (PM0.1) and ozone. 

 

For example, the WHO states (page 6 of the Executive summary of the new air quality guidelines):

 

The present guidelines are applicable to both outdoor and indoor environments globally. Thus, they cover all settings where people spend time.

 

Please note the WHO expects to update its new air quality guidelines in 2031 or thereabouts (see page 206 of the new guidelines).

 

Key other risks may come from the myopic selection or implementation of Net Zero policies e.g. using hydrogen to extend the life of gas appliances.

 

Please also note that COMEAP has increased the concentration response function for PM2.5 from 6% to 8% per 10 ug/m3 i.e. attributable death rates will increase by one-third (all other things being equal).

 

  1. The Government also needs to address the UK’s full direct and indirect contribution to air pollution across all sectors e.g. transboundary air pollution and aviation, food, shipping and waste.

 

  1. The Government needs also to digest and implement fully the Climate Change Committee’s advice – including addressing the caveats it makes – in achieving Net Zero. For example, it seems to assume that all buildings in cities will have zero air emissions by 2050 or earlier not just ‘Net Zero’ (because the UK’s netting capacity will be needed for hard or impossible to decarbonise sectors).

 

  1. Solutions need to include lifestyle solutions alongside technology. CAL describes a spectrum of lifestyle measures from: bans and charges to campaigns to build public understanding to incentives and adoption (e.g. seatbelts).  These can be achieved by making the political costs of inaction greater than action as has happened with diesel in London.  Such measures are not normally considered as part of government cost/benefit analyses.

 

  1. Solutions also need to include many obvious solutions, well-evidence elsewhere.  For example, UK policy makers, politicians and some NGOs seem to dismiss such solutions judgmentally e.g. French speed limits on motorways to reduce NOx emissions when ozone air pollution episodes are expected and requirements to line chimneys to dramatically improve their heat efficiency (on the path to banning the use of fireplaces).

 

  1. For many years, CAL has recommended that a cost-effective approach is needed to protect public health and comply with science-based targets to limit global heating to 1.5 degrees. Simplistic cost/benefit approaches depend often on arbitrary assumptions and incentivise wishful thinking.

 

CAL has five recommendations:

 

  1. CAL encourages PUBACCOM to broaden and deepen its inquiry and ask the NAO to produce a supplementary report to address the issues raises by CAL in this important year for action on ‘air’ (key themes are summarised in paragraph 17 above).

 

  1. The Cabinet Office should be given responsibility for ‘gripping’ the UK’s (non) compliance with air pollution and climate change targets and obligations. Lead responsibility for air pollution concentrations and emissions should be removed from Defra or the Department should be put on probation.

 

  1. The government should implement Baroness Jones’s Clean Air (Human Rights) Bill, which topped the ballot, to enshrine the human right to clean air precisely and explicitly in UK law. Rosamund Adoo Kissi-Debrah has agreed that this could be called Ella’s Law. CAL has been advising Baroness Jones on her Bill since she requested it in 2017: https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3161.

 

  1. Local authorities and Metro Mayors need to be given the powers to require ultra low or zero emissions from non-transport sources of pollution including buildings. They are crying out for support.

 

  1. The UK needs a comprehensive and convincing suite of plans and programmes to address primary and secondary pollutants to comply with all its legal and other obligations (e.g. the WHO’s new air quality guidelines) in required timescales – including annually, 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040 and 2050. This work should follow a “One air” approach to maximise synergies for public health, the environment and Net Zero.

 

June 2022

9