In the summer of 2017, I did some calculations comparing
the social cost of particulate matter (PM) and nitrogen oxide (NOx)
emissions from cars to the charges to be levied by the then forthcoming London
Ultra Low Emissions Zone (ULEZ). The article is here: [[1]].
I concluded that the ULEZ charges were out of all proportion to the social
costs of the pollution, which I had calculated using the UK government’s own
recommended figures. In summary, ULEZ was even back then, and still is, a total
rip-off.
At the time, I – naïvely,
perhaps – did not consider the possibility that the UK government’s figures
themselves might have been products of a process that was not entirely scientific
or honest. So, I let the subject of air pollution lie for a while. I turned my
attention to other aspects of the struggle between, on the one side, we human
beings, and on the other, the political élites
that claim they have a right to rule over us.
Background
Climate change
In the years since 2017, I have gained a clearer picture
of the science, or lack of it, behind the “global warming” or “climate change”
narrative. And of the political machinations which have been going on to
maintain that narrative, to conceal the costs associated with it, and to
prevent the truth being brought out into the open. I also found that, among the
perpetrators of these machinations, the UK government has been one of the most
prominent. In that, indeed, it has been second only to the United Nations, for
50+ years the main driver of the green agenda.
That work generated a set of five essays, published in the
spring of 2023: [[2]],
[[3]],
[[4]],
[[5]],
[[6]].
(I give these links for reference only. My argument here is independent of them).
In the first essay, I exposed the lack of hard evidence
for the idea that there is a problem with the climate. And the lack of hard evidence
that any such problem, even if it did exist, would have been caused by human
emissions of greenhouse gases. Or that it would be a crisis. Or that cutting
carbon dioxide emissions would do any good for the climate at all.
In the remaining four essays, I uncovered the back-story
behind this narrative and the policies it has spawned. These included: Dishonest
and tyrannical behaviour by the UK government and their hangers-on against the
people they are supposed to serve. Co-operation by our supposed representatives
with the anti-human deep green agenda, that has been driven by the United
Nations for more than 50 years. The inversion and perversion of the
“precautionary principle” into a tool for tyranny, and the consequent sidelining
of objective risk analysis. Corruption of science. Persistent moving of the
goalposts, always in the direction of increasing restriction. And the
shenanigans, through which our enemies have made it all but impossible to do
objective cost-benefit analysis of these policies.
Anti-car policies
Meanwhile, anti-car policies have proceeded apace. In
particular, the ULEZ was expanded from its original scope in central London,
first in 2021 to inner London, then to the boroughs of outer London, including many
places which are all but rural. The latest expansion, in August 2023, is still
the subject of protests and other ructions. There are also now “default” 20mph
speed limits throughout Wales. Local councils are producing “transport plans,”
which will place serious obstacles in the way of drivers, both in terms of
exorbitant costs and of loss of ease and convenience. These obstacles are
likely to force many older or poorer drivers out of their cars, meaning that the
hardest hit will lose their mobility entirely. And there is a “Vision Zero”
road safety campaign in my area, that is horribly reminiscent of the “Net Zero”
shenanigans of the last few years.
I realized that there could be some merit in doing for the
anti-car agendas the same exercise that I had earlier done for the climate
agenda. So today, I will start to document the back-story behind the anti-car
policies, which have plagued the people of the UK, under governments of all
parties, for 30 years and more.
I have previously published parts of this back-story, but
have never before tried to assemble the whole of it in one place. My exposition
will inevitably, therefore, be long. To mitigate this, I plan to split it into six
essays. This, the first, will look at the facts on the issue variously dubbed
“air pollution” or “clean air,” which is being used as one of the major excuses
for anti-car policies. The second will cover the history behind these policies,
up to 2008. The third will cover the UK government report of 2009, which tried
to make a scientific justification for air pollution reduction policies. The
fourth and fifth will cover the history from 2009 to the present, and schemes
currently in progress, with particular reference to my local area. And the last
will summarize what I found, and present my conclusions.
Smogs and Hazes
There are generally regarded as being two types of major air
pollution episode, other than those caused by a specific chemical leak. These
are “smogs” and “hazes.” Smogs generally occur in Western and Asian cities, in
relatively cold climates. They also take place mainly in early winter. But hazes
occur over larger areas, and are found almost exclusively in the warmth of south
and south-east Asia.
I tried to classify the major episodes of air pollution, which
have had significant, proven adverse health consequences to human beings, into
one of these types. I found that most could be classified as either smog or
haze. But a few may have elements of both.
I shall start with smogs, since these were historically the
first to draw attention.
The Great Smog of 1952
The start point of the story is the London “Great Smog” of
December 1952. During a cold, windless winter week-end, unusual amounts of air
pollutants concentrated in the atmosphere in and around London. The weather
conditions included a temperature inversion, in which a layer of warm air traps
a much colder layer beneath it, which has the effect of holding pollutants
within the cold layer close to the ground. This produced a fog, in which
visibility and air quality were both very poor for several days in a row.
This was not different in kind to the “pea-souper” fogs, to
which Londoners were well accustomed. But this one was unusually serious in
its effects.
The 1953 report
A 1953 report by the UK government Committee on Air
Pollution [[7]]
addressed the pollution issues which led to the smog. Here are some of its
salient points:
[Page 6]. “The problem of air pollution… is also a problem
of great complexity.” “The harmful and dangerous ‘smog’ occurs only when smoke
and oxides of sulphur and perhaps other deleterious substances are present in
the fog in quantity.” “Both medical opinion and chemical investigation indicate
that the deleterious effects of the oxides of sulphur are greatly enhanced by
the presence of smoke particles…”
On page 10, the pollutants were identified as: “Solid: Particles
of carbon or soot causing black smoke, and particles of coal, coke, smoke, and
ash carried forward as dust and grit in the chimney gases. Liquid or semi-solid
carbonaceous matter: Particles of tarry matter causing yellowish brown smoke. Unburnt
and partially burnt gases: Hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide. Sulphur oxides:
Sulphur dioxide gas and sulphur trioxide mist, which with water give sulphurous
and sulphuric acids.” Interestingly, there was no mention of nitrogen oxides.
[Pages 15-16]. “The London ‘smog’ was accompanied by an
immediate and sudden rise in both illness and mortality. The number of deaths
over and above those expected in the first three weeks of December indicate
that some 4,000 people died as a result of the smog.”
[Page 17]. According to hospital data, “respiratory disease
was nearly quadrupled,” and “heart disease figures rose to three times the
normal numbers.”
The report included two graphs. The first [Page 18] showed
deaths versus levels of sulphur dioxide and smoke for the period around the
Great Smog:
Figure 1
Now, I would read that graph as showing a good
correlation, and perhaps suggesting a possible causation worth investigating,
between sulphur dioxide (SO2) levels and deaths a day or two later.
The correlation between “smoke” (particulate matter or PM, as it is now known)
and deaths is far less strong.
The second graph [Page 19] showed deaths and SO2
levels over a period of months surrounding the smog event:
Figure 2
That graph, too, suggests a degree of correlation between SO2
pollution and deaths in both winters. From all this, it was estimated that as
many as 12,000 people may have died from, or had their lives shortened by, the
effects of the Great Smog. The main culprit for the smog, so it seems, was
sulphur dioxide (SO2). Its effects were enhanced by the presence of solid
carbonaceous particles. Both are produced by the burning of coal, and to a
lesser extent the burning of oil.
However, pollution from SO2 was not the only
deadly issue around the time. There was a flood in Eastern England in early
February 1953, and though some of the deaths from this flood took place in
places like Canning Town, these were not considered part of London at the time.
So, the large number of London deaths in the first half of February was,
presumably, not – even in part – due to the flood.
Nor, according to the above graph, was it directly due to
the level of SO2 at the time (around weeks 32-33). Moreover, the SO2
peak in early March does not seem to have had any significant effect on
mortality. So, the report’s initial assertion, that both particulate matter and
sulphur oxides must be present to produce a dangerous smog, seems justified.
Conclusions of the report
I will quote some of the main conclusions of the report. [Pages
29-30]. “Complete cure of both solid and gaseous pollution, if indeed it
be ever attainable, is bound to take many years, but means of averting at least
the worst evils of air pollution by smoke and grit are within practicable
reach. It is simply a question of balancing the cost and inconvenience of
enforcing a more scientific use of our fuels against all the advantages to be
gained in health, convenience and economy from a clear atmosphere. This
problem, with all that is involved in a real attack on the menace of air
pollution, is one which must be faced.”
I can agree with the second sentence above, except the word
“simply.” But it seems worrying to me that even back in 1953, there was already
growing in government minds a grandiose idea of complete cures for
environmental problems, to be reached through an attack on them.
And the final sentences [page 30] are even more concerning, ending
with a plea for “general acceptance of the fact that the cure will require
heavy expenditure and full co-operation of all persons and all interests.” With
hindsight, this can be seen as a warning for the future, that even in 1953 the
recently elected Tory government already had plans for large-scale and costly
political interventions in the name of “clean air.”
Consequent political action
Back then, coal was the primary fuel both for heating and
for power generation. The reason why so much sulphur dioxide was emitted from
coal-burning in the UK was that the government had decided to export most of
the higher-grade coal, in order to re-fill its coffers after the war. The
people, and the power generators, were left with low-grade coal, with a high
sulphur content. So, the Great Smog was, with hindsight, a disaster waiting to
happen. A disaster whose ultimate cause, if I may be cynical, was government
putting its own interests ahead of the interests of the people it was supposed
to be serving.
The result was political action, and the Clean Air Act 1956,
which led to a number of follow-ups. Over a decade and more, levels of air
pollution, particularly sulphur dioxide, were significantly reduced. Precisely how
much benefit that achieved, through lowering deaths and illnesses due to SO2
pollution, is a question to which I have not been able to find any clear answer.
Nor, indeed, could I find any estimate of how much more costly it made the
lives of the people of the UK. But the effects of the original Clean Air Act
and its successors, overall, are today considered by most people to have been
positive.
The importance of the Great Smog is that it established for
the first time, in the minds of government and its bureaucrats, if not also of
many of the general public, the idea that “public health” issues due to air
pollution were something in which government has a right to interfere. At the
time, of course, all this had little or nothing to do with cars, which were
still not ubiquitous even in London. There were only two and a half million
cars in the whole UK. But in hindsight, the Clean Air Act 1956 was to be the
thin end of an extremely large wedge.
London pollution levels prior to 1952
We don’t have any reports of huge negative effects from
individual smog events in London prior to 1952. But we do have this data: [[8]].
Average PM levels in London peaked in the 1890s, at around 620 µg/m3 (micrograms
per cubic metre). The average PM level in 1952 was 200 of these units, and in
2016 was 16. This represents a drop by a factor of 12.5 since the year of the
Great Smog, and of almost 40 since the 19th-century peak.
The same page also gives data on some of the health effects.
“Air pollution deaths throughout this period rose steeply; in London, mortality
from bronchitis increased from 25 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants in 1840 to 300
deaths per 100,000 in 1890. At its peak, 1-in-350 people died from bronchitis.”
Back in 1952, there was no understanding of the particle sizes
in the different components of particulate matter. Today, however, since
smaller particles can more easily find their way into the lungs, we distinguish
between PM10 (particles less than 10 microns or 10 micrometres), PM2.5
(less than 2.5 microns) and PM1 (less than 1 micron). PM2.5
is considered to be the maximum size limit for particles to be easily taken
into the lungs.
Other significant smogs
The Great Smog was not the first smog. But it was by far the
most serious in its proven effects on the population. Here are a few other
smogs, which have had bad enough health effects to acquire their own monikers.
Meuse Valley fog 1930
This was a fog in the Belgian part of the Meuse Valley,
which occurred in early December 1930 and killed over 60 people. It was
accompanied by a temperature inversion. It was diagnosed as probably due to
emissions of gases containing fluorine, such as hydrogen fluoride, from nearby
factories. Fluorine is very reactive and highly toxic: not nice stuff to be
breathing. Its emissions have been controlled since the 1950s, and it is not put
forward as a serious pollutant today.
St. Louis smog 1939
At the end of November 1939, St. Louis, Missouri underwent a
severe smog episode. This was diagnosed as due to the burning of low-grade,
bituminous coal: combined with a temperature inversion.
This suggests that the Great Smog in London, 13 years later,
was very likely due to the same causes.
Donora smog 1948
This was a very local smog, confined to one mill town in
Pennsylvania. But it nevertheless killed 20 people. This seems to have been
caused by emissions of hydrogen fluoride and SO2 from local
factories. Combined with, you’ve guessed it, a temperature inversion.
Interestingly, the proportion of the 12,000 of London’s then
8.3 million population estimated to have been killed or otherwise harmed by the
London smog is very close to the proportion of Donora’s population killed in
the 1948 smog, about one in 700.
Yokkaichi asthma
Between 1960 and 1972, an industrial area in southern Japan
was affected by outbreaks of serious respiratory problems. This was generally
blamed on local industrial emissions of SO2; although some
researchers have suggested it may have been more due to sulphur trioxide (SO3),
which with water forms sulphuric acid.
New York City smog 1966
This occurred in late November in the New York metropolitan
area, and in parts of New Jersey and Connecticut. It was blamed on emissions of
smoke, SO2 and carbon monoxide, and made worse by a large mass of
stagnant air, and a temperature inversion. (Again).
This smog was responsible for kick-starting controls on air
pollution in the USA, including the 1967 Air Quality Act and the 1970 Clean Air
Act. The former greatly expanded the federal government’s reach in the area of
pollution. And the latter led to programs and bureaucracies which have
continued to this day, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It
is interesting that these phrases “air quality” and “clean air” are still used
today in accusing us of “sins of emission!”
Harbin smog 2013
This occurred in Harbin and surrounding areas in North-East
China in late October 2013. It was said to be due to a combination of
unseasonably warm temperatures and very little wind. PM levels were very high,
and the pollution was blamed on farmers burning crop waste, together with the
start-up of the coal-fired communist district heating system for the winter.
Eastern China smog 2013
This smog occurred further south than, and more than a month
after, the Harbin smog. It was blamed on coal burning and factory emissions,
both of which produce SO2 and nitrates. There was also a lack of air
flow, which kept pollution trapped low to the ground. Uniquely, this smog and
its effects covered a far wider area than just one city or even one province.
Great Smog of Delhi 2016
In November 2016, there began in Delhi and surroundings a
“Great Smog,” which went on for almost three months. Delhi’s air quality
problems reach a large peak each year in November and December, two of the four
coolest months in the year.
The main cause of this particular smog, and likely of the
recurrent air quality problems, seems to be the burning of stubble by farmers
in neighbouring provinces. Stubble burning produces, not only PM and SO2,
but also nitrogen oxides (NOx). The BBC reports, here: [[9]].
Other pollution causes have been suggested, including vehicle emissions. But
these do not explain the seasonality of the regular air quality issues.
A local example
I myself can attest that the burning of stubble can produce
high levels of pollution. This was a common practice among UK farmers in my
youth. Most kinds of stubble burning were banned in the UK in 1993, but I do
recall a particular incident in – if I remember right – about 2000. Some local
crop fields had been purchased, to be turned into a garden centre. Presumably,
the area burned was too small to fall foul of the regulations at that time. But
I remember that the air was extremely unpleasant to breathe, and the stink
lasted five days.
Hazes
Hazes, in contrast to smogs, tend to occur in some of the warmest
parts of the world. Hazes have been recorded in south-east Asia since about 1972.
In recent decades, these have become an almost yearly event, with the worst
conditions being reported in 1997 and 2015.
The 1997 haze was diagnosed as caused by “slash-and-burn”
agricultural fires in Indonesia. This is a traditional agricultural practice in
the region. On top of this, considerable areas of land in Indonesia consist of
dried-out peat forests, which when burned produce pollution with a high sulphur
content. It seems that this practice was responsible in large part for the
later hazes, too.
The fires were unusually widespread in 1997, due to El Niño causing the dry season
(which lasts usually from April to September or October) to be exceptionally
dry. The fires produced particulate matter, which spread over a large swathe of
south and south-east Asia, going as far afield as Thailand, Singapore, the
Philippines and Sri Lanka. The negative health effects of this mixture were
significant.
Causes of smogs and hazes
The above suggests that there are two sets of causes, which have
been shown to produce air pollution leading to proven, measurable, significantly
negative health effects.
PM and SO2
The first of these causes is industrial pollution that includes
both particulate matter and sulphur oxides. Sometimes, it may also include
nitrogen oxides; but it is not clear that these are necessary to produce
serious health effects. PM and SO2 together have been the main
culprits in the cold weather smogs. And these serious smogs have always taken
place in conditions of stagnant air and low wind, and generally in the presence
of a temperature inversion, too.
Burning of coal containing sulphur compounds is the major
activity that has produced this pollution mix, both in Western countries and in
China. The bad health effects are worst when there is lack of wind, or a temperature
inversion. With the exception of the East China smog of 2013, the worst of the effects
of these smogs seem to be limited to a relatively small area, such as a single
city, at any one time.
Burning of vegetation
The second cause is burning of vegetation on the large
scale, as part of agricultural practices. This is the major cause of the
south-east Asian hazes. It also, in my view, was probably the main cause of the
Harbin smog of 2013. For if the communal heating system had been the culprit,
we would have expected to see such smogs happening in most years, not just this
one.
Whether burning off old stubble, or slash-and-burn for new
crops, the burning of vegetation produces pollution containing particulate
matter and sulphur compounds. In the case of stubble burning, significant
amounts of nitrogen oxides may be given off, too.
The 2016 Great Smog of Delhi covered a wide area, and the
weather while cold for the location was not cold in temperate-zone terms. It
could well be that this particular incident was down to a combination of the
two causes.
Which pollutants are the toxic ones?
I will repeat parts of two key sentences from the 1953
report on the Great Smog in London. “The harmful and dangerous ‘smog’ occurs
only when smoke and oxides of sulphur and perhaps other deleterious substances
are present in the fog in quantity.” And: “Both medical opinion and chemical
investigation indicate that the deleterious effects of the oxides of sulphur
are greatly enhanced by the presence of smoke particles…”
The first sentence is clear. You need both PM and sulphur oxides
to produce a dangerous smog. So, PM alone is not necessarily a problem. And the
second tells us that sulphur oxides alone constitute a far lesser problem than
sulphur oxides plus PM. (Perhaps this may account for the SO2 peak
in early March 1953 failing to produce a corresponding increase in deaths.) So,
neither one nor the other produces a serious smog, but a combination of both. This
conclusion is borne out by my analysis above of individual smogs and hazes. So
far, so good.
But what did the report mean by “perhaps other deleterious
substances?” This might, for example, refer to highly toxic divalent metals
such as lead, cadmium or perhaps mercury, which can easily react with sulphate
ions even in small concentrations. Lead is often present in PM, and could react
with sulphuric acid to produce particles of lead sulphate small enough to find
their way into the lungs. Such a mechanism might perhaps explain why PM2.5
and sulphates together are more toxic than either alone. Cadmium also is
present in PM, particularly in wood smoke.
Alternatively, the report might refer to oxidants produced
by a reaction involving sulphates or perhaps nitrates. These are some of the
matters, which would later be looked into by COMEAP (Committee on the Medical
Effects of Air Pollution).
To sum up
Smogs and hazes seem generally to be caused by a combination of particulate
matter and sulphur oxides. The latter may come either from industrial
emissions, or from the burning of stubble or other vegetation with a high
sulphur content. Indeed, all the serious smogs and hazes I looked at had both
these pollutants present in large quantities. Many had unusual meteorological
conditions, too: stagnant air, low wind, or even a temperature inversion.
But I get a feeling that the whole story may prove to be a bit more complicated than that.
[[2]] https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/03/15/climate-crisis-what-climate-crisis-part-one-the-evidence/
[[3]]
https://libertarianism.uk/2023/04/12/climate-crisis-what-climate-crisis-part-two-where-we-are-in-the-uk-today/
[[4]]
https://libertarianism.uk/2023/04/13/climate-crisis-what-climate-crisis-part-three-the-back-story-up-to-1992/
[[5]]
https://libertarianism.uk/2023/04/14/climate-crisis-what-climate-crisis-part-four-the-back-story-since-1992/
No comments:
Post a Comment