Sunday 21 April 2024

The Back-story behind Anti-Car Policies in the UK, Part Six: Summary and Diagnosis

This is the last in a set of six essays. In which, I tell the story behind the anti-car policies, which have so plagued the people of the UK for more than 30 years, and are now intensifying almost day by day. I have tried to make this essay as stand-alone as I can, so my readers can appreciate it in isolation, without having to plough through all the detail in the first five.

It is undeniable that the dishonesty, nastiness and vehemence of those seeking to force us out of our cars have risen to fever pitch. And this is happening everywhere, not just in the UK. For example, just a few days ago, I heard that the Germans were talking about “comprehensive and indefinite driving bans on Saturdays and Sundays.” [[1]]. And the idea is now being floated of banning diesel engined cars, entirely and soon: [[2]].

But there is an old saw: “Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.” Not just the anti-car fanatics, but the green political fanatics as a whole, have gone mad. And their madness seems to be ever-rising. Something, I feel, has got to give.

The back-story

I shall begin by summarizing, very briefly, what I discovered while writing each of the five earlier essays.

In the first essay [[3]], I reviewed all the historical air pollution episodes I could find, which had proven, significant negative health impacts. I concluded: “The main diagnosis in the government’s report on the London Smog of 1952, that both particulate matter and sulphates are necessary in quantity in order to produce bad health effects, seems to have been borne out by the evidence.”

In the second essay [[4]], I told the back-story behind the green and anti-car policies from their first stirrings in the early 1970s, up until 2008. I cut off at 2008 because, the following year, a UK government report provided apparent scientific justification for new initiatives to reduce particulate matter pollution.

In the third essay [[5]], I reviewed the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollution (COMEAP) report of 2009, which set out to estimate the risk coefficients to be used in the UK to assess the mortality effects of PM2.5 [particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns].

This was my conclusion. “This report was not an honest attempt to inform policy assessments by quantifying the risks arising from PM2.5 pollution in the UK. It was far more like an exercise in creating ‘evidence’ to suit previously determined policies. It was simply an excuse – a 180+ page excuse – for falling into line behind the WHO’s position on the matter. It was not science, but politics.”

The fourth essay, [[6]], follows the anti-car back-story from 2009 up to 2022. And in the fifth essay, [[7]], I brought the back-story up to date. In the latter, I concentrated particularly on the local transport plan and “vision zero” road safety campaign being implemented by Surrey County Council. To distil the essence of what the county council are doing here: “If it moves, tax it, and force it to go slower. When it doesn’t move, slap a parking charge notice on it.”

To summarize these two essays as a whole: The future the car-haters want for us is George Orwell’s “boot stamping on a human face – forever.” Moreover, they want to push us into that future by any means they possibly can, including lies, deception and foul play.

The evidence

Next, I will “slice and dice” what I found when putting together the first five essays, in an attempt to build a coherent picture of where we stand today.

Air pollution episodes of the past

The 1953 government report, which assessed the Great London Smog of 1952, was very clear that for a smog to cause bad health effects, both particulate matter (PM) and sulphates are necessary in quantity. When I reviewed all the seriously harmful smogs I could find, which have occurred in temperate climates since, I found nothing that contradicted this conclusion.

Most of the harmful smogs have extended over relatively small areas. They generally occur in early winter. And they require windless conditions, and very often a temperature inversion.

There is another kind of harmful air pollution episode, hazes. These cover far larger areas than smogs. But they occur only in the warm climates of, and in connection with the agricultural practices of, south and south-east Asia. So, they would not be relevant to the UK.

It is also worth noting that, apart from one in north-east China – which had the characteristics of a haze as much as a smog, including concurrent burning of crop waste in farmers’ fields – there have been no seriously harmful smogs in temperate climates since the early 1970s. So, might the worst of the air pollution problems have been, in reality, already solved in Western countries fully 50 years ago?

Particulate matter and sulphates have been, and in some places still are, produced together in quantity mainly by three processes. First, industrial and transport emissions. Second, the burning of stubble. Third, the burning of vegetation with a high sulphur content. The second and third of these processes appear to be the causes of the Asian hazes.

In the UK, stubble burning has been in effect banned since 1993. And the sulphur content of coal has been reduced enormously since the 1950s. There used also to be significant emissions of sulphur compounds from road transport. But these have been hugely reduced since the introduction in 2000 of ultra-low sulphur diesel. So, cars are not a big contributor to sulphur dioxide pollution today.

Government interventions

There have been some government policy interventions on air pollution, which have demonstrably improved health outcomes. Among these were the banning of high-sulphur coal in Dublin. But in all these successful interventions, the main pollutant reduced has been sulphur dioxide.

No other interventions, and in particular no interventions impacting on road traffic, have yet been shown to have had any significant positive effect on health. A 2011 report found no clear effect of the London congestion charging scheme on air pollution levels. A 2018 paper came up with no hard evidence of any health improvements due to the London LEZ (Low Emissions Zone for commercial vehicles). And a 2021 study found that the London ULEZ (Ultra Low Emissions Zone) brought about only small improvements in air quality in the first nine months of its operation. So, any health benefits could only have been minuscule.

It is notable that in both the last two cases, anti-car political forces tried to get the scientific conclusions changed or suppressed.

Cultural perversions

Next, I will look at the cultural perversions, to which the green extremists, including those that want to force us out of our cars, have subjected us in the last 40 years or so.

The precautionary principle

Firstly, there is the perversion of the precautionary principle. The original principle, “Look before you leap,” discourages action unless and until you are fairly sure the consequences will be nett positive. An alternative form is “First, do no harm,” closely related to the Hippocratic oath for doctors. But this principle has been perverted and subverted.

This perversion was begun by the United Nations in 1992, with the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. It was carried on by activists, with the support of corporate interests, in the Wingspread Statement of 1998. And it was completed in 2002 by the UK’s “Interdepartmental Liaison Group on Risk Assessment.”

The principle, as applied by its proponents – including the EU, the UN and its World Health Organization (WHO), and the UK government – has been all but inverted. It has become, in effect: “If in doubt about a risk, government must act to prevent it.” You can see this in, for example, the WHO’s bid to take over global control of pandemic strategies.

This perverted precautionary principle is very nasty to live under. For it violates our human rights in at least three ways. One, it unjustly inverts the burden of proof. Two, it denies the presumption of innocence. Three, it unfairly requires the accused (that’s us) to prove a negative. Moreover, it encourages government to take action against any risk, actual or potential, however small and however unproven the risk may be.

Creeping targets and limits

Secondly, there is the culture of arbitrary, collective, ever tightening targets and limits. This was conceived by the European political élites in the 1980s. It was designed to be applied to all kinds of air pollution, as well as to CO2 emissions. Since then, it has been taken on eagerly, both by the United Nations and its World Health Organization (WHO), and by UK governments of all parties. And in the 2010s, the EU became its policeman across Europe.

Now, the desire to get away from this culture was one of the motivations that led so many of us back in 2016 to vote for Brexit. But despite leaving the EU, this culture has not been weakened. Indeed, the UK government, particularly since 2019, have been pushing it ever harder and harder.

This culture, too, has characteristics that make it very nasty to live under. One, it can never be applied fairly and justly. Collective limits always weigh hardest on the people at the bottom of the political ladder. The arrogant élites, both as individuals and as a group, will simply ignore the limits they themselves promoted. They think they only apply to “the little people.” That explains, for example, why so many hypocrites fly in CO2-spewing private jets to conferences designed to find ways to force ordinary people to reduce CO2 emissions.

Two, a key part of the design is that the goalposts must be kept moving. The job is never done; the problem, whatever it is, is never solved. For example, the CO2 emissions goalposts have already been moved many times, always in the direction of increasing restrictions. Exactly the same is planned for PM2.5, and no doubt other kinds of pollution as well.

Three, in the end, the targets or limits will always end up becoming unrealistic and unachievable. This has already happened with “net zero.” And it will do so with air pollution too, once the implications of the WHO’s 5 micrograms per cubic metre guideline for PM2.5 sink in to people’s minds.

Safety at any cost

Thirdly, these two cultural perversions together have brought about a culture of “safety at any cost,” to which we are subjected today.

This “safety” culture, as applied by political governments, subjects us to ever more and tighter restrictions, while spying on us to catch us out in the smallest violation. But who is supposed to feel safe? And who or what are we supposed to feel safe from? This culture certainly doesn’t make me, for one, feel safe against government overreach.

Moreover, this culture has led to ongoing failures to do objective risk analysis on, or cost-benefit analysis from the point of view of the people affected by, green projects. And in the latter case, to machinations designed to prevent any such cost-benefit analysis being done.

This culture of over-safety, I think, has also been a major force behind the ongoing assaults on our freedom of speech. For such a depraved culture cannot survive the glare of the truth. The demonization of opponents of the “climate change” meme. The censorship, using Big Tech, of dissident voices who seek to reveal the truth. The efforts to make any chance remark into a potential “hate crime.” All these, I surmise, are different heads of the same hydra.

And this hydra has, if I am not mistaken, many more heads still. The erection, on just about any excuse, of more and more “panopticon” cameras to track and record us as we go about our daily lives. The ever-growing list of situations, in which we are required to prove our identities, to confirm who we are. Projects such as anti-money-laundering laws, the abolition of cash, and central bank digital currencies, whose effects will be to destroy the last shreds of privacy in our financial dealings. All these, I think, are being driven ultimately by this same perversion, the culture of safety at any cost.

Governments and their hangers-on like to make out that they want us to be safe. Indeed, this very excuse is used to “justify” campaigns like “road safety.” But in reality, I think, it is the denizens of this depraved culture that want to make themselves safe. Safe from “climate change,” safe from air pollution, safe from the truth coming out, safe from all possible resistance by the human beings they are oppressing. Safe from us.

The interface between science and politics

I shall park these considerations for now, and look at a specific area in which I found what looks like political interference in what ought to be objective science.

The scientists

In putting together the story, I have gained a picture of the group of scientists, who work in the arena of air pollution toxicology. The group is small and international. And they often work together. Many of them have been working 20 years or more in the area. Most of their funding comes from governments – in the context of these essays, mainly the UK. But the group has also been significantly funded by the WHO and the EU.

These funders, as I see things, are also the main drivers of the cultural perversions, which I discussed above. I find it hard to believe that these paymasters would not seek to control the tune that is played by the pipers they fund. So, the hypothesis that there is groupthink among scientists working in the area, seems a reasonable one. Certainly, we know that there is plenty of groupthink among climate scientists!

The COMEAP reports

As to the COMEAP report of 2009 on PM2.5, I think that my conclusion that it was not an honest attempt to inform UK policy assessments is more than reasonable.

There were several things in it, that simply didn’t look right. If I try to pick out aspects of the report that I found most concerning, one would be that it concentrated on long-term exposure, whereas all the seriously harmful temperate-climate smogs of the past have been caused by relatively short pollution spikes. Another would be that it simply ended up parroting the WHO’s recommendation. A third would be the failure to consider in detail the interactions between PM2.5 and sulphates. Even though the authors of Working Paper 4, and the peer reviewers, had highlighted this as an issue.

To the COMEAP report of 2018 on nitrogen dioxide (NO2). It is interesting that, instead of detailing in the main report the studies that were taken into account, as they had done in 2009, they chose to relegate this to a Working Paper. It is also interesting that the lead author of that Working Paper, Professor Richard Atkinson of St. George’s, University of London, was among the three COMEAP members who took a dissenting view, and – rightly, in my opinion – refused to draw any “headline” conclusions about the risk of mortality from NO2.

Professor Atkinson was also a co-author of Working Paper 4 in the 2009 report, on sulphates. From the evidence I have seen, I am far more confident in his credentials as an unbiased, expert scientist, than I am in the COMEAP committee as a whole.

Another interesting point on the NO2 front is that I could find no evidence of nitrogen oxides being thought of as serious pollutants before 2013. That was the year of two review projects, REVIHAAP and HRAPIE, jointly funded by the WHO and the EU. Might it have been these projects that started the process of demonizing NO2?

Political interference

I also related two incidents, in which a deputy mayor of London tried to have the conclusions of scientific studies changed or suppressed. On the second of these occasions, a chair of COMEAP was involved in the deception.

But there is also evidence of political interference by activists inside government itself. There are clearly activists, not only in COMEAP, but in the Health Security Agency (HSA) which supports it. I will not name names here, but they are in the earlier essays. I also found at least one example of HSA connivance at director level with green pressure groups.

Moreover, the judicial review of the case against the ULEZ expansion, brought by four outer London councils, was obviously affected by political interference. Not only did the judge fail even to consider the two most important complaints made by the councils, the lack of cost-benefit analysis and the lack of proper consultation. But he then ruled against the councils, in a manner that had all the hallmarks of a whitewash.

I told of local councils, including Surrey County Council, becoming members of an activist organization called UK100, without allowing ordinary people any chance to object. While the main focus of UK100 is “net zero,” many of these councils have also become highly activist against cars. And city councils are joining C40, which is not only activist, but an international organization to boot; and whose current chair is none other than Sadiq Khan.

Behaviour towards the people

In the fifth essay, I looked at how Surrey County Council, in particular, is behaving towards us, the ordinary people they are tasked to serve. We pay huge amounts of money for the “privilege,” yet what we get in return is worth not much at all. And a lot of what they do, including all the anti-car policies, is directly opposed to our interests. Moreover, Surrey isn’t the only example: government today, at all levels, is doing similar things to us.

All this paints a picture of a government, indeed of an entire governmental system, that has gone seriously rogue. Government, at many different levels, is failing even to try to serve the people as it should. All the mainstream political parties – Tories, Labour, Lib Dems, Greens – are in on the scam. And judging by the example of Surrey, even the police are in on it, too.

When I went to read government documents or newspaper reports about anti-car policies, and tried to assess the mind-set of those responsible for those policies, I found myself using some extremely choice words and phrases. Zealotry. Dishonest. Devious. Lies, misleading, ad hominems. Bad faith towards the people. Wanting to use “nudge” and “behaviour change” techniques on us. Kleptomania. Arrogant and uncaring. Reckless and remorseless.

Are these the characteristics of those we want to see in positions of government power? No, they are the characteristics of psychopaths. These individuals are behaving like those whose chosen way of life is organized crime. If government fails to protect us against criminal psychopaths like these, what is the point of having it at all?

Where we are today

Car and van drivers are under attack on at least four distinct but related fronts.

Net zero

First, there is “net(t) zero,” and taxes and other policies supposedly to cut CO2 emissions. We are already paying huge vehicle excise duties and fuel taxes. “Pay per mile,” and the more nebulous “smart road user charging,” come from the same stable. These policies are being driven (no pun intended) by the United Nations.

The part of the UN concerned directly with CO2 emissions is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But the pressures for these policies are coming from the very highest level of the UN. That madman Guterres seems to be trying to destroy Western civilization! And UK governments, of all parties, have also been pushing these policies for more than 30 years, with great eagerness.

Anyone, who has looked objectively into the “climate change” and net zero issue, knows that the “science” is bad. There is no climate crisis, no proven problem with the global climate, and no rationale for any restrictions on CO2 emissions. Yet the pushers just keep on pushing.

Clean air

Second, there is “clean air,” also known by its older moniker, “air quality.” The London LEZ and ULEZ are examples of schemes supposedly to improve this. It is the WHO that is pushing policies in this area. But the UK government has been, and still very much is, helping things along. That Sunak is “on motorists’ side” cannot be other than a lie.

But what I only discovered in the course of writing these essays is that in air pollution too, the “science” does not stand up to scrutiny. It would be interesting if honest scientists with expertise in this area were to do a detailed audit of what has gone on in COMEAP, the HSA and the rest of the UK government over air pollution toxicology. And publish the results.

Road safety

Third, the mantra of “road safety.” This has already led to chicanes, speed-bumps, cycle lanes, road narrowing, and the proliferation of speed limits that creep inexorably downward year by year.

And now, it is being used to promote the unrealistic, unachievable, freedom-destroying wild goose chase that is Vision Zero. The driver of which is… yes, you’ve guessed it, the WHO.

Limiting road traffic

Fourth, there are attempts, physically or through legislation, to limit the amount of traffic on the roads. Schemes like the Road Traffic Reduction Acts of the 1990s originated with Friends of the Earth and the Green Party. But you can bet the UN will have been cheerleading for them too. Low Traffic Neighbourhoods are an example of an attack of this kind.

The nub of all the problems

All these problems, as I see things, have three common factors at their core.

Gross over-government

Firstly: Government has become gross, both in its size, and in the scope and reach of what it does. In the process, it has lost all respect and concern for the people it is supposed to serve.

Western governments, including the UK, have outgrown all the boundaries of reasonability, both in the resources they consume, and in how they treat us human beings. They have ceased to serve the people as they should, but are treating us as no more than resources to be exploited and used for their nefarious plans. The political state has become ethically bankrupt. And it is beginning to show signs of financial bankruptcy, too.

Moreover, unaccountable superstates – not just the EU, but the United Nations too – are by their natures liable to trample on, and if not stopped trash entirely, human rights and freedoms.

Cultural perversions

Secondly: Political activists have contrived, over the last 40 years or so, to bring about major perversions in the cultures in developed countries, including the UK.

They rely on three main perversions in order to impose their wills on us. One, the perversion of the precautionary principle into a tool for tyranny. Two, the culture of arbitrary, collective, ever tightening targets and limits. Three, the culture of safety at any cost, leading governments to act in many situations when they ought not to. This culture also leads them to disregard risk and cost-benefit analysis from the point of view of the people.

Psychopaths and power

Thirdly: Far too many in government behave like psychopaths. This, I think, has come about because the political state, as it exists today, is based on an idea called “sovereignty.” This idea was developed in the 1570s by French monarchist Jean Bodin. It has been implemented around the world since 1648 as the “Westphalian” state.

In Bodin’s scheme, the “sovereign” – the king or ruling élite – is fundamentally different from, and superior to, the rest of the population in its territory, the “subjects.” The sovereign has moral privileges. It can make laws to bind the subjects, and give privileges to those it chooses to. It can make war and peace. It appoints the top officials of the state. It is the final court of appeal. It can pardon guilty individuals if it so wishes. It can issue a currency. It can levy taxes and impositions, and exempt at will certain individuals or groups from payment.

Furthermore, the sovereign isn’t bound by the laws it makes. And it isn’t responsible for the consequences to anyone of what it does (also known as “the king can do no wrong.”) Thus, the state is unaccountable at its very roots. So, in spite of the sham called democracy, wannabe tyrants can join the state, and climb up its greasy pole. If they play their cards right, they can acquire money, influence and power, without the accountability that ought to go with them. It’s a crook’s wet dream.

In short: Political power attracts psychopaths and potential psychopaths. And lack of accountability is built into the political system. It is hardly surprising, then, that many of those that end up with political power behave like psychopaths.

To sum up

The level of emotion among those aiming to force us out of our cars, or tax us out of existence for using them, or both, is continuing to rise. It has reached fever pitch, and is already hard to distinguish from madness.

As I traced the back-story behind anti-car policies in the UK, I became convinced that none of the air pollution episodes in temperate climates since the 1950s, which have had serious negative health effects, had been caused by any one pollutant. In every case, for air pollution to induce significant bad health effects, two pollutants must be present in quantity: particulate matter (PM) and sulphur oxides (SO2 or SO3). And in almost every case, unusual meteorological conditions, such as a temperature inversion, are needed as well.

Since the 2000 introduction of ultra-low-sulphur diesel, cars are no longer a significant source of sulphur dioxide pollution. Thus, it seems unlikely that conditions anything like the London Great Smog of 1952 will occur in the future due to pollution from cars.

I became convinced that the COMEAP report of 2009 on PM2.5 was not an honest attempt to provide a basis for objective assessment of air pollution policies in the UK. It was merely an excuse for falling into line behind the position of the UN’s WHO.

I became concerned that the views of the scientists working in air pollution toxicology may have become perverted by groupthink. Two projects in 2013, which were jointly funded by the WHO and the EU, may have been seeds of such groupthink.

As to the COMEAP report of 2018 on nitrogen oxide (NOx) pollution, I found myself agreeing with the dissenting group within the committee. There is not enough scientific certainty to reach any quantitative conclusions on the toxicity of nitrogen oxides on their own. Without such certainty, to demonize diesel cars because they emit NOx is not justified.

I became convinced that, according to the peer-reviewed science, none of the UK government interventions impacting road traffic in London (congestion charge, LEZ, ULEZ) had been proven to have had significant positive health effects.

I identified three political and cultural factors, that seem to have combined to bring about the situation we find ourselves in. One, the gross over-expansion of government, that has taken place over the last few decades. Two, the perversion of the “precautionary principle” into a tool for tyranny. This has led to cultures of creeping targets and limits and of “safety at any cost,” encouraging governments to ride roughshod over the interests of the people they are meant to serve. And three, a political system left over from the 16th century, that leads too many in governments to behave towards citizens in a manner I can only describe as psychopathic.

How to go forward?

Now, I had originally intended, at this point, to start putting forward some ideas about what we, the ordinary people of the UK, might seek to do in order to fix these problems. But as I explored those ideas, I found that the task demanded a completely different kind of essay. One less focused on facts and deductions from them, and more focused on “philosophy.” I therefore decided to terminate this set of six essays at this point, and to address potential solutions to our problems under separate cover.

So, I shall leave you today with two things. First, for those who are interested, a “sneak preview” of my philosophical thinking as a whole: [[8]]. I must warn that the paper linked to is over 15,000 words. And despite all my best efforts, it is not an easy read. But the good news is, it’s out there.

And second, a promise to complete my work on the potential fixes just as soon as I can. Till then, in the words of Michael Ende: “But that is another story and shall be told another time.”


Posted by

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)