How should government behave towards the governed?

Image credit: Andy Feliciotti, Unsplash

Recently, I addressed the question: what functions should government perform? Based on the ideas of John Locke, I came up with a fairly conventional list. A legislative, with highly circumscribed powers. A police force or equivalent. A defensive and retaliatory military. Impartial, objective and honest courts of justice, with the associated support services. A quality control function. And a fair and just system of financing its functions.

Today, I’ll look at a question at right angles to that one. Namely, how should government behave towards those whose lives, rights and liberties it is tasked with defending?

Locke’s answers

Locke himself gave some answers to this question.

First, every law a government makes must be for the good of the governed. And it must never go against, or push beyond the bounds of, the standard of behaviour natural to human beings: “no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions.” Moreover, any law must be for the good of every individual among the governed, who behaves up to the standard of human nature. And every law must be made known to all, and the case for it explained. So, anyone affected by it can understand it, and why and how it benefits them.

Second, criminal penalties may only be imposed on those that attack the lives, persons, liberties or possessions of others. And civil penalties are only justified as reparations for quantifiable damage caused. Outside these situations, government must never damage the life, person, liberties or possessions of any individual among the governed.

Third, all judges’ decisions must be impartial and unbiased.

Fourth, payment for government must be as far as possible in proportion to the benefits each individual receives from the protections it delivers. In practice, that means in proportion to the individual’s total wealth. Government should never take anything more than this.

Fifth, government must never go beyond its remit of securing the lives, persons, liberties and possessions of the governed. Nor may it ever attack anyone who behaves up to human standards.

Sixth, government must recognize that all its power ultimately derives from the people it governs, and must never seek to transfer any of that power to any other parties.

Enlightenment values

I have written much about the Enlightenment, and the values it has brought to us since John Locke initially sparked it. Back in 2021, I went so far as to make a list of these values. Here it is: “The use and celebration of human reason. Rational inquiry, and the pursuit of science. Greater tolerance in religion. Individual liberty and independence; freedom of thought and action. The pursuit of happiness. Natural rights, natural equality of all human beings, and human dignity. The idea that society exists for the individual, not the individual for society. Constitutional government, for the benefit of, and with the consent of, the governed. The rule of law; that is, those with government power, such as lawmakers, law enforcement officials and judges, should have to obey the same rules as everyone else. An ideal of justice which, per Kant, allows that ‘the freedom of the will of each can coexist together with the freedom of everyone in accordance with a universal law.’ A desire for human progress, and a rational optimism for the future.”

It's interesting to see how these values might be incorporated into the practices of an enlightened government today.

Reason

Reason is, simply put, thinking, understanding and forming judgements in a logical way. And “reasonable” means fair, sensible and showing sound judgement. A reasonable government, then, would be one that makes its decisions rationally and objectively, as well as impartially.

Rational inquiry and science

Rational inquiry takes reason forwards, in order to reach conclusions that match reality. Science is a particular kind of rational inquiry; when done properly, it is a method for finding out truths about our surroundings. A government that values rational inquiry and science would ensure that all its decisions are based on evidence, reason and, where appropriate, honest science.

Religious tolerance

A government that values religious tolerance would not use its powers to impose on anyone any particular religion or philosophy. Such as Christianity, Islam, atheism, socialism, fascism or environmentalism. Nor would it tolerate those that seek to impose on others any such religion or philosophy. Nor would it prohibit the practices of any religion or philosophy, unless they violate the standard of behaviour natural to human beings.

Liberty and independence

Individual liberty and individual independence are Enlightenment values. Those who want them (which is most of us), and who earn them by behaving up to human standards, deserve to enjoy them. Government should never discriminate against those who seek these things.

Closely related is the idea that any society, most of all a Lockean political society that seeks to justify the formation of a government, must act for the benefit of its members. All its members. If such a society fails to do so, and government treats any of the governed as if their good is subordinate to that of the government, or of some collective “society,” or of a political agenda, that government is failing to meet the purposes for which it was formed.

Natural rights

The natural rights, which form the flip side of Locke’s summary of the natural law of humanity, are: Life (in the sense of not being murdered). Security of person (not being attacked). Liberty, or having all your fundamental rights and freedoms recognized. And not to have your property violated or taken away.

To these the US Declaration of Independence adds the right to pursue happiness. And the first few amendments to the US constitution add more yet.

First amendment: Freedom of religious belief and practice. Freedom of speech, freedom to write and disseminate ideas and opinions. Right to peaceful assembly. Right to protest grievances, and to demand their rectification.

Second amendment: Right to self-defence, both individually and in association with others. Right to means of self-defence sufficient to implement that right.

Third amendment: Right to exclude unwanted individuals from your property.

Fourth amendment: Right not to have yourself, your property whether fixed or movable, or your records searched or seized, without all of: Reasonable suspicion of real wrongdoing. Pre-specification of where is to be searched, and what for. And due process of law.

Fifth amendment: No criminal punishment without a conviction under due process of law. No second jeopardy for the same accusation. No compulsion to self-incrimination. No deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process of law. No taking of property without just compensation.

Sixth amendment: Right to speedy and public trial of all criminal accusations. Right to determination by impartial tribunal. Right to be informed of the specifics of, and reasons for, the accusations. Right to cross-examine, directly or through an agent, the witnesses against you. Right to all the guarantees necessary for your defence.

Eighth amendment: No excessive bail demands. No excessive fines. No cruel or unusual punishments.

Ninth and tenth amendments: Any list of rights is not necessarily exhaustive. And any powers not explicitly delegated to government remain with the people.

Thirteenth amendment: No slavery or involuntary servitude.

Natural equality of human beings, and the rule of law

Equality among human beings was considered natural in the Enlightenment. In Locke’s words: “all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another.” So, there can be no “divine right of kings” (or anyone else) to rule over others, or to use political power for their own purposes.

Moreover, the Enlightenment idea of the rule of law implies that everyone must obey the same rules. In my terms, this is equivalent to the ethical equality of all human beings. What is right for one to do, is right for another to do under similar circumstances, and vice versa.

Human dignity

The idea of human dignity implies that every human being deserves to be treated as a human being. Not as a mere animal, or as a resource to be taxed or otherwise exploited, or as merely a member of some “society,” or as no more than a number or a pattern of bits in a database.

If you are a human being – that is, if you behave as a human being – then you must be treated as an individual, with the full measure of dignity and respect which are due to a human being.

Government – constitutional, for the benefit of and with the consent of the governed

For government to be constitutional, its powers must be clearly defined and delineated. They must be known to all the governed. And they may never be exceeded.

That government must be for the benefit of the governed means not only that everything it seeks to do must be a benefit to the governed – to every human being among the governed. But also, that the costs the governed are expected to pay for government, either in aggregate or as individuals, must never exceed the value of the benefits government provides to them, either in aggregate or as individuals. Government has no right “to destroy, enslave, or designedly to impoverish” the governed, or anyone among them. Nor may it unjustly take wealth away, or re-distribute wealth to itself or its favourites. Nor may it “harass or subdue” the governed “to the arbitrary and irregular commands” of those in power.

That government must have the consent of the governed means that its power has been delegated by the people, and continues only with their consent. Thus, where a government fails to fulfil the purposes for which it was created, the governed have the right to take back their consent. As Locke put it: “All power given with trust for the attaining an end being limited by that end, whenever that end is manifestly neglected or opposed, the trust must necessarily be forfeited, and the power devolve into the hands of those that gave it.”

Justice

In my earlier essay, I gave you Richard Hooker’s 16^th-century conception of justice, which Locke adopted, and which is not far from my “condition in which each individual is to be treated, over the long run, in the round and as far as practicable, as he or she treats others.” This view of justice, I assert, does satisfy Kant’s condition as quoted above.

Desire for human progress

As I outlined in an earlier essay about our history, the Enlightenment was a hugely progressive phase of our development as a species. It’s not surprising, then, that a desire for human progress was an Enlightenment value. So, no government founded on Enlightenment principles would ever put an obstacle in the way of human progress towards a better world.

Rational optimism

Rational optimism, say psychologists, is a “belief that things can and will improve, grounded in realistic expectations and practical action.”

Governments today usually seek not to improve our lives, but to drain us and to violate our rights and freedoms. And their goals are often nonsensical, unrealistic or both. This makes many people pessimistic about at least the short-term future. A government founded on Enlightenment principles, on the other hand, would always aim to improve the lives of the people, would be realistic in its goals and expectations, and would be careful to restrict its plans to things which are both feasible and cost-effective.

Human rights

“Human rights” can be a source of major disputes. Many proposed rights – life, liberty, security of person, and prohibition of torture, for example – are accepted as real rights by almost everyone. In contrast, there are extreme collectivists and moral relativists, that reject any idea of individual human rights. And there are those that would arbitrarily add “rights,” that have no more rationale than their own political agendas.

I myself strongly value the idea of human rights. And I regard each individual as having earned his or her human rights, by respecting the equal rights of others. But I do not accept all proposed “rights” as being real rights. I see a “right” as invalid, if to satisfy it requires violating the rights of others. Social security is an example of such a “right.” I also reject any proposed “right” without a moral standard which, if measured up to by everyone, would deliver it. Such cases include a “right” not to be offended, and “rights” to “clean air” and a “stable climate.”

Types of rights

As I explained in an earlier essay on ethics, rights and obligations, I see three main types of valid human rights:

1)     Fundamental rights, resulting from obligations to refrain from doing something bad.

2)     Rights of non-impedance, resulting from obligations not to put any obstacle in the way of others’ freedom to do something they want to.

3)     Procedural rights. These guide the procedures used in confrontational situations, including between government and the people it is supposed to serve.

In addition, I see a fourth type, the somewhat weaker “expectations.” These result from obligations, that positively require behaving in a convivial and civilized way.

The UN Declaration

The United Nations is today an enemy of humanity, and of our freedoms and prosperity. Given that, it pains me to have to use the 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights as the best available specification of modern human rights. But it’s the least bad I have.

I shall list a selection of rights from the UN Declaration below. Where the declaration uses the word “arbitrary,” I will replace it by “without reasonable suspicion of real wrongdoing.”

Examples of fundamental rights

Dignity, which means being treated as a human being. Life, in the sense of not being murdered. Security of person. No enslavement. No torture. No cruel, unusual or inhuman treatment or punishment. No arrest, detention or exile without reasonable suspicion of real wrongdoing. No interference (including surveillance) with privacy, family, home or correspondence, without reasonable suspicion of real wrongdoing. No attacks on honour and reputation without reasonable suspicion of real wrongdoing. No coercion into marriage. Right to own property alone or with others. No deprivation of property without reasonable suspicion of real wrongdoing. No compulsion to belong to any society. No destruction of rights or freedoms.

Examples of rights of non-impedance

Liberty of action and choice. Freedom of movement and residence inside a state. Freedom to exit a state. Right to seek asylum. Freedom to return. Right to marry. Freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Freedom of opinion, expression and communication. Right to peaceful assembly and association. Right to take part in government, directly or indirectly. Free choice of employment. Right to choose education for your children.

Examples of procedural rights

(These rights are to be respected in confrontational situations, including those involving government).

Recognition as a person before the law. Equality before the law. Remedy for violations of your rights. Fair, public hearing by an independent, impartial tribunal. Presumption of innocence until proved guilty. Public trial. All guarantees necessary for your defence. No retrospective penalties. “Will of the people,” and their consent, as the basis of all authority.

Aspirations

The Declaration also includes a wish-list of what I call “aspirations.” Among these are: Right to work. Social security. Protection against unemployment. Equal pay for equal work. Just and favourable remuneration. Right to reasonable rest and leisure. Right to form trade unions. A minimum standard of living. Special treatment for mothers and children. “Free”, “compulsory” education. Right to participate in cultural life. Intellectual property rights. A social and international order that underpins these rights and freedoms.

Some of these cannot be implemented without adversely impacting the rights of others. But many of them are valid, and can be far better re-stated as rights of non-impedance. For example, the “right to work” becomes a right not to be impeded in seeking work.

Expectations

In an earlier essay on the Nolan Principles of Public Life, I gave a list of expectations, which individuals can reasonably have of how government should behave towards them. It may be summarized as follows:

1)     Selflessness: Everyone in government must act solely in the interests of the governed. (And as Locke told us, that means in the interests of every individual among them).

2)     Integrity: No-one in government may allow themselves to be inappropriately influenced.

3)     Objectivity: All government decisions must be impartial, fair, unbiased, and based on merit and the best evidence available.

4)     Accountability: Those in government must be held accountable for the effects on the governed of what they do.

5)     Openness: Government must act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner, and may not withhold information from the governed without very good cause.

6)     Honesty: All holders of government office must be truthful. (Also candid, straightforward and sincere).

7)     Leadership: Everyone in government must treat the governed with respect. And they must practise whatever they preach.

In conclusion

This essay has concentrated on how government should behave, not on how governments today actually do behave. Rather than attempt to summarize all the points I have made above, I’ll simply ask a question: How well do today’s governments measure up to the standards we ought to be able to expect of them?

Don’t laugh.

What should be the functions of government?

(Image credit: Andy Feliciotti, Unsplash)

“Political power, then, I take to be a right of making laws, with penalties of death, and consequently all less penalties for the regulating and preserving of property, and of employing the force of the community in the execution of such laws, and in the defence of the commonwealth from foreign injury, and all this only for the public good.”

–       John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, §3

Today, I will ask the question: What functions ought government to perform? And I will aim to answer this in a Lockean manner.

I shall begin with the paragraph at the head of this essay, the first substantive statement in John Locke’s Second Treatise. I shall fill out the picture with more of his ideas. And at the end, I shall list the core functions of government, as they ought to be in a system based on Locke’s political ideas.

Laws

According to Locke, a government has a right to make laws. But not just any old laws. They must not be “the fancies and intricate contrivances of men.” They must not represent “contrary and hidden interests put into words.”

Instead, “the end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom.” “Laws ought to be designed for no other end ultimately than the good of the people.” And laws are “only so far right as they are founded on the law of Nature.”

That means, in my terms, that laws must defend the freedoms of the governed, never destroy or damage those freedoms. They must always aim at the good of the people; that is, the good of every human being worth the name among them. And these laws may only interpret or explicate the natural law of humanity. Which, in Locke’s paraphrase, is: “being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions.” Laws must not contradict this natural law, violate it, or push beyond its bounds.

Such laws, if properly conceived, justly designed, fully debated and consented to by the people, can provide one of the things, which Locke identifies as missing if there is no government. That is, “an established, settled, known law, received and allowed by common consent to be the standard of right and wrong, and the common measure to decide all controversies between them.”

Penalties and reparations

In Locke’s view, government laws can carry penalties if broken, up to and including death. This may seem over the top for laws “for the regulating and preserving of property.” But Locke saw the individual human being as “proprietor of his own person.” Thus, attacks against the person, including lethal violence, he saw as also attacks on that person’s property. Indeed, he used the word “property” as a general word for “their lives, liberties and estates.”

Locke also countenanced civil-law compensation, in addition to criminal-law penalties. “Besides the crime which consists in violating the laws, and varying from the right rule of reason … there is commonly injury done; in which case, he who hath received any damage has … a particular right to seek reparation from him that hath done it.”

Enforcement and defence

Government has a right of “employing the force of the community in the execution of such laws.” That is, requiring those who subscribe to the political society either to be part of, or to pay for, a force to restrain and, where appropriate, to punish those that break such laws. This would correspond, in modern terms, to a police force, together with the right to make a citizen’s arrest.

Government may also use that force “in the defence of the commonwealth from foreign injury.” As above, I see this as levying an obligation either to be part of, or to pay for, a force to be used for military defence against aggressions by political states.

Judges and punishments

Locke gives his view of the functions of government in a short chapter beginning at §123. While not explicitly named in the quote at the head of this essay, one of the functions listed there is “a known and indifferent [impartial] judge, with authority to determine all differences according to the established law.” In today’s terms, this means courts of justice, which can arbitrate disputes, and try those accused of crimes. This is another of the things Locke saw as missing if there is no government.

Another function listed is “power to back and support the sentence when right, and to give it due execution.” This corresponds, in today’s terms, to the services, such as prisons, which support the courts of justice.

Justice

Locke says remarkably little in his Two Treatises about justice, or what it actually is. He does say: “Justice gives every man a title to the product of his honest industry, and the fair acquisitions of his ancestors descended to him.”

But for the most part, he delegates the job to Richard Hooker, a cleric of a century before. Who says: “If I do harm, I must look to suffer, there being no reason that others should show greater measure of love to me than they have by me showed unto them; my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposes on me a natural duty of bearing toward them fully the like affection.” So, Hooker’s, and thus Locke’s, conception of justice is not so far away from my “condition in which each individual is to be treated, over the long run, in the round and as far as practicable, as he or she treats others.”

Paying for government

“It is true,” says Locke, “governments cannot be supported without great charge, and it is fit everyone who enjoys his share of the protection should pay out of his estate his proportion for the maintenance of it.”

I read this as meaning that each individual should pay, for any period in which government defends his assets, in proportion to the benefit he receives from that protection. And I read “out of his estate his proportion” as saying that how much he is expected to pay should be in direct proportion to his total wealth. This seems fair to me, as I would expect the cost of defending anyone’s life and wealth to be in close proportion to the amount of that wealth.

Further, government “must not raise taxes on the property of the people without the consent of the people given by themselves or their deputies.” But the deputies or “representatives” themselves are bound to act in the interests of the people. “For all power given with trust for attaining an end being limited by that end, whenever that end is manifestly neglected or opposed, the trust must necessarily be forfeited, and the power devolve into the hands of those who gave it.” That means that if our supposed “representatives” agree to taxes that go against, or are used for purposes that go against, the good of the people, they have forfeited our trust, and may no longer act, or claim to act, on our behalf.

The public good

“All this,” says Locke, must be “only for the public good.” He defines this in the First Treatise as “the good of every particular member of that society, as far as by common rules it can be provided for.”

Later, he puts his case more strongly. “The power of the society or legislative constituted by them can never be supposed to extend farther than the common good, but is obliged to secure every one’s property by providing against those three defects above mentioned that made the state of Nature so unsafe and uneasy. And so, whoever has the legislative or supreme power of any commonwealth, is bound to govern by established standing laws, promulgated and known to the people, and not by extemporary decrees; by indifferent [impartial] judges, who are to decide controversies by those laws; and to employ the force of the community at home, or abroad to prevent or redress foreign injuries and secure the community from inroads and invasion. And all this to be directed to no other end but the peace, safety and public good of the people.”

I interpret all this as meaning that if someone keeps to the natural law of humanity – “no-one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions” – then government must never harm him in any of those ways. Nor may it do anything outside its remit of securing everyone’s life, health, liberty and possessions. Nor may it judge any case in any way that is not totally unbiased, objective and honest. Nor may it use force outside its bounds, except in defence or retaliation.

No transfer of power

Locke writes: “The legislative cannot transfer the power of making laws to any other hands, for it being but a delegated power from the people, they who have it cannot pass it over to others.” Thus, this power always rests ultimately with the people, and cannot be transferred, either explicitly or implicitly, to any external organization such as the EU or UN.

To sum up Locke’s view

1)     Government can make laws. But these laws must always aim at the good of the people. And when put into effect, they must defend the lives, liberties and possessions of the governed, never destroy or damage them.

2)     Government laws may only interpret or explicate the natural law of humanity, which forbids everyone to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions. They must never contradict it, violate it, or go into areas beyond its bounds.

3)     Government laws can carry penalties if broken.

4)     Government can order reparations for harms done.

5)     Government can use force to restrain and, where appropriate, to punish those that break laws, or fail to pay reparations that it has ordered. Individuals can assist if they are so minded.

6)     Government and individuals can use force to defend or retaliate against military attack.

7)     Payment for government should be in proportion to the wealth of an individual’s estate. No other taxes may be levied without the consent of the governed.

8)     Everything government does must be for the public good. That is, the good of every individual among the governed, as far as it can be achieved by making and enforcing laws common to all.

9)     Government power rests ultimately with the people, and cannot be transferred to external parties.

The core functions of government

Here are the functions of government, as foreseen in John Locke’s political philosophy, but brought up to date in terms of institutions of government today.

1)     A legislative, whose powers are circumscribed by the limitations I set out above.

2)     A police force or equivalent.

3)     A defensive and retaliatory military.

4)     Impartial, objective and honest courts of justice, covering compensatory and penal law.

5)     The support services associated with the courts of justice.

To which, for practical reasons, there should be added:

6)     A quality control system, to ensure that government always acts for the public good.

7)     A fair and just system of financing the other government functions, in which the core payment is in proportion to total wealth, and there are no further taxes without consent.

And that’s it!

A Brief History of Air Pollution in the UK

(Image credit: Alan Frijns, Pixabay)

This will be a sharply cut down précis of some of my earlier work, which has documented the history of the science and politics of air pollution and anti-car policies in the UK.

Air Pollution Episodes

I shall first discuss some specific air pollution episodes, whose health effects have been proven to be serious and adverse. I shall concentrate mainly on two kinds of pollutant. First, sulphur oxides. And second, PM_2.5 (that is, particulate matter small enough to find its way through the body’s defences into the lungs.) Though I shall also, towards the end, touch on the subject of nitrogen oxides.

The Great London Smog of 1952

During a cold, windless winter week-end in 1952, unusual amounts of air pollutants collected in the atmosphere in and around London. This produced a fog, in which visibility and air quality were both very poor for several days in a row. I wrote about this here: [[1]].

According to the government report the following year, this “smog” was accompanied by an immediate and sudden rise in both illness and mortality. Hospital figures show that respiratory disease nearly quadrupled, and heart disease levels were three times normal.

The blame was laid on a combination of sulphur oxides and “smoke” (what would now be called “particulate matter” or PM). The report said: “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.” This unhealthy combination was produced by the burning of low-quality coal, with a high sulphur content. As many as 12,000 people may have died from, or had their lives shortened by, the effects of the Great Smog.

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, and particularly of sulphur dioxide, were significantly reduced.

Other smogs in London, the USA and Japan

Data from the time suggests that mortality from bronchitis in London rose by a factor of more than 10 between 1840 and the 1890s. This reflected a sustained increase in coal-burning, and in the “pea-souper” fogs, for which London became famous. Since then, a combination of regulation and technical improvements has reduced levels of both sulphur oxides and PM, which today are only 2 or 3 per cent of 1890s levels.

In the 20^th century, there were similar smogs in other parts of the world. St. Louis in 1939 and New York City in 1966 were two major ones, and they resulted in political action. There have also been smog events, attributed to sulphur oxide pollution, in Japan. But I know of no such destructive smogs in the Western world since the early 1970s.

Before 1950, there had also been examples of serious health damage in Europe and the USA, due to fluorine compounds emitted into the air. However, there have been none since.

Hazes

Hazes are a more recent phenomenon, with similar effects to smogs. They have occurred since 1997 in south-east Asia and in China. There have also been smogs in China and India during that time.

All these seem to be associated with two sources of pollution. One, pollution from coal and other industry, like the Western smogs. And two, agricultural practices that burn vegetation on a large scale. Such practices often result in large seasonal emissions of PM and sulphur oxides together. Just like the known causes of the major Western and Japanese smogs.

Which pollutants are the toxic ones?

Looking at the field as an informed outsider, I see no evidence to contradict the conclusion of the UK government’s 1953 report on the Great Smog of London. Namely, that you need both PM and sulphur oxides together to produce a dangerous smog.

As to the toxins that directly cause the adverse health effects of this mixture, epidemiologist James Enstrom did a calculation a few years ago, which estimated the total PM ingested in a lifetime of breathing average US city air as about 5 grams. This means that, if these toxins are carried in the PM, they must be very toxic indeed when absorbed into the bloodstream. There are certainly three highly toxic divalent metals (cadmium, lead, and mercury) in PM, which might react inside the lungs to produce a sulphate that ends up in the bloodstream, and could cause the toxic metal to accumulate over the longer term.

Though there has been some science done in this area, notably in China, I am surprised that a problem which has been known about for 70 years seems to have been so little investigated.

The history up to 2008

I’ll look at the history chronologically, as I did earlier at [[2]].

The 1970s and 1980s

In the 1970s, the main focus in the scientific area of air pollution and health was monitoring.

Links between air pollution and health became in the 1980s more and more a political matter. And in Germany, the idea of ambitious “clean air” policies, requiring reductions of emissions from cars as well as from other emissions sources, was first mooted.

The Rio Summit and after

Then, in 1992, there was Rio. The agreements made there did not have a direct, immediate effect in the area of air pollution and health. But they surely inspired the UK government to start taking steps towards making air pollution into a hot-button political issue.

COMEAP, the Committee on Medical Effects of Air Pollution, was established in 1992. Professor Stephen Holgate, later to prove an activist in these matters, was its first chair.

Also in 1992, the EU (as it was soon to become) issued its first vehicle emissions standards. In the UK, catalytic converters were required in petrol engines. And the London Air Quality Network (LAQN) was formed, to monitor various pollutants.

In 1993, the Clean Air Act regulated the content of motor fuels. And in the USA, the “Six Cities” study was published, which became the baseline for assessing health effects of PM.

The UK Environment Act 1995 brought a requirement for government to prepare a National Air Quality Strategy. In 1996, the EU issued its Ambient Air Quality Directive. And 1997 brought the publication of the first UK National Air Quality Strategy. All the time, the UN’s World Health Organization (WHO) was working behind the scenes, setting “guidelines” for concentrations of many pollutants, and bedding-in the culture of ever-tightening, collective limits, to which we have been increasingly subjected ever since.

In 1998, the EU issued a new directive on fuel standards. And COMEAP addressed for the first time the issue of links between air pollution and health. In 1999, the UK signed up to the Gothenburg Protocol. And from 2000 on, the scope and pace of regulation only increased. The 2001 EU National Emissions Ceiling directive was a significant marker on the trail that led to air pollution being used more and more as an excuse to violate our rights and freedoms.

In 2003, work started towards the London Low Emissions Zone (LEZ). In 2005, the EU’s “Clean Air for Europe” program began. Also in 2005, the WHO updated its air quality guidelines, including a guideline for PM_2.5 an order of magnitude lower than previous limits, even the EU’s.

One intervention in 2006, which did seem to produce positive results, was stricter controls over the sulphur content of marine fuels. And in 2007, the introduction of ultra-low sulphur diesel does seem to have had positive effects in reducing the amount of very small PM, as well as sulphur oxides; not surprising, given what we know from the Great Smog! What is surprising, though, is that – almost uniquely, it seems – this was achieved at reasonable cost.

In 2008, the EU issued yet another omnibus directive, on Ambient Air Quality and Cleaner Air for Europe. And the London LEZ went into operation.

The COMEAP report of 2009

2009 marks a watershed over this issue. For in that year, COMEAP produced a report which, apparently, laid a “scientific” foundation that enabled government and activist campaigners to make out that air pollution was a more serious problem than had previously been thought.

One thing I found strange was that COMEAP focused only on the level of PM_2.5 in order to estimate the risk, irrespective of what that PM contained, or what other pollutants it was accompanied by. The idea that “all PM_2.5 is equal” in toxicity does not seem to me to be anywhere near proven, even though this is the official line maintained by the WHO. Indeed, as above, historical evidence strongly suggests that PM_2.5 and sulphur oxides together are more toxic than either of them alone.

You can read the full essay at [[3]]. Here are some of my conclusions from the end of that essay.

That the focus was on effects of pollution reductions, rather than on gauging the scale of the pollution problem as a whole, worried me from the start. The “expert elicitation” exercise to determine confidence intervals gave me no confidence at all. That the direction of the report, and what it would study, had been set as early as the beginning of 2006, got me concerned about the integrity of the scientific process which led to its results. And that the whole exercise ended up slavishly following the WHO’s recommendations – even in the confidence intervals! – raised a red flag for me.

That the report concentrated on long-term exposure, when historical evidence suggests that the biggest proven negative health effects from air pollution have come from episodic exposures, struck me as obtuse. Moreover, the significant role of sulphur compounds in combination with PM in causing health damage was not properly addressed, even when brought up by two of the peer reviewers. This damaged further my confidence in the integrity of the processes. And the presence on the committee of at least one activist on the issue did not inspire me with confidence in its impartiality.

All of these pieces of evidence combined to lead me to my conclusion. This report was not an honest attempt to inform policy assessments by quantifying the risks arising from PM_2.5 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 history from 2009 onwards

The three essays which tell the back-story in detail from 2009 are here: [[4]], [[5]], [[6]]. It is a long and tangled tale, and I shall select only a few of the events most important from the air pollution toxicology point of view.

2009 to 2013

In 2009, the LAQN (London Air Quality Network) report for 2006/7 identified that the EU limit value for nitrogen oxides was being exceeded in many places in London. Curiously, the 2008, 2009 and 2010 reports weren’t published until 2012!

The major UK report of 2010 in the air pollution area was the follow-up to the COMEAP report of 2009. It concluded: “An effect on mortality in 2008 of nearly 29,000 deaths in the UK at typical ages and an associated loss of total population life of 340,000 life-years.” Figures like these are still bandied about today by those of an activist bent.

In 2011, a UK team reviewed how much effect the LEZ charging scheme had had on air pollution levels since 2003. The answer to the question was, in brief, not very much.

By 2012, the culture of arbitrary, ever tightening, collective “targets” and “limits,” that had been conceived by the EU, adopted by the UN, and supported by politicians that ought to have known better, was in full swing. And in Europe, the EU had become its policeman. In the same year, some of the saner UK air quality experts issued a report that “challenges the robustness of the evidence for making future policy decisions in respect of PM_2.5 in the UK context.” But they were not listened to.

The main air pollution story of 2013 came from the WHO and the EU. In that year, they started promoting air pollution as a really big problem, with a project called REVIHAAP. (“Review of Evidence on Health Aspects of Air Pollution.”) A sister project, HRAPIE, “Health Risks from Air Pollution in Europe,” summarized the views of “expert stakeholders.”

I cannot avoid thinking that the WHO and EU must have funded these two projects in order to bias air pollution science towards activism.

2014 to 2018

In 2014, the European Commission, the executive of the EU, took the UK to court for exceeding nitrogen oxides limits. And in 2015, DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) issued a report on nitrogen oxide pollution, which made out that these gases had worse effects than previously thought.

The major event of 2016 in the air pollution field was a report by the RCP (Royal College of Physicians) and the RCPCH (Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health). It was titled “Every breath we take: the lifelong impact of air pollution,” and was alarmist and activist. Its figure of 40,000 deaths each year due to PM_2.5 and nitrogen oxides went viral in the media. The chair of the working group that produced this report was Professor Stephen Holgate.

In 2017, the UK government issued a Draft UK Air Quality Plan for “tackling” nitrogen dioxide. This laid the foundation for Clean Air Zones, charging entry fees for non-compliant cars and vans. Moreover, it explicitly planned the upcoming London Ultra Low Emissions Zone (ULEZ), from the “T-charge” of 2017, via the launch of ULEZ in 2019, to its extension to the North and South Circular Roads that was to happen in 2021.

In 2018, COMEAP issued another report, on “Associations of long-term average concentrations of nitrogen dioxide with mortality.” It shows evidence of a rather confused genesis, for example: “Policy needs have determined the focus on NO₂ in this report.”

On this occasion, the committee could not reach agreement on its conclusions. Three brave dissenters said, rightly in my view: “there is insufficient evidence to infer a causal association between long-term average ambient NO₂ concentrations and risk of death.” But the majority pressed on regardless, saying: “There is a case for an NO₂ contribution of unknown size.” And, despite admitting that they did not know its size, they gave a risk figure for it anyway!

Another, landmark event of 2018 was a real-world study by Professor Chris Griffiths, which investigated the impact of London’s LEZ on air quality and children’s respiratory health. It “found no evidence of a reduction in the proportion of children with small lungs over this period, despite small improvements in air quality in highly polluted urban areas during the implementation of London's LEZ.” But Shirley Rodriguez, deputy mayor of London, did not like this outcome, and pressured Professor Griffiths to change his conclusions. Which he, to his credit, refused to do.

2019 to the present

I do not think that I need to give much detail on all that has happened since 2019; you can use your own memories, or refer to my original essays. A few bullet-points should suffice.

·       The COVID panic, and all that went with it.

·       The “consultation” on “de-carbonizing transport.”

·       The “Great Reset.”

·       A labelling change, instituting a “Clean Air Programme” and a “Clean Air Day.”

·       New, and greatly tightened, air quality guidelines from the WHO.

·       Extension of ULEZ to the North and South Circular Roads.

·       The first “Clean Air Zones.”

·       An Imperial College study that concluded, “The ULEZ caused only small improvements in air quality in the context of a longer-term downward trend in London’s air pollution levels.” Which, again, the Deputy Mayor of London tried to suppress, this time with help from the then chair of COMEAP.

·       Announcement of “Clean Air Champions,” including Professor Stephen Holgate.

·       A most revealing 2022 “Chemical Hazards and Poisons Report” from the UK Health Security Agency.

·       Extension of ULEZ to Outer London, and the judicial shenanigans that went with it.

·       Activist, anti-car local transport plans springing up, even in rural counties.

·       The WHO’s overblown and unachievable “Vision Zero” road safety scheme.

·       And much more…

To sum up

In this missive, dear reader, I have given you many individual snippets of information. They are like dots in a pattern. Can you connect the dots, and work out what has actually been going on in the world of air pollution toxicology since the 1980s or thereabouts?

To give you a little hint: We’ve been had, haven’t we?

---

[[1]] https://libertarianism.uk/2024/04/07/the-back-story-behind-anti-car-policies-in-the-uk-part-one-air-pollution-episodes/

[[2]] https://libertarianism.uk/2024/04/08/the-back-story-behind-anti-car-policies-in-the-uk-part-two-the-story-up-to-2008/

[[3]] https://libertarianism.uk/2024/04/09/the-back-story-behind-anti-car-policies-in-the-uk-part-three-the-comeap-report-of-2009/

[[4]] https://libertarianism.uk/2024/04/10/the-back-story-behind-anti-car-policies-in-the-uk-part-four-the-story-from-2009-to-2022/

[[5]] https://libertarianism.uk/2024/04/11/the-back-story-behind-anti-car-policies-in-the-uk-part-five-the-story-of-the-last-15-months/

[[6]] https://libertarianism.uk/2024/04/21/the-back-story-behind-anti-car-policies-in-the-uk-part-six-summary-and-diagnosis/

The Clean Air (Human Rights) bill

(Image credit: Matt Palmer, Unsplash)

There is upcoming, on Friday November 7^th, 2025, the second reading of a parliamentary private member’s bill. It is titled the “Clean Air (Human Rights) Bill.” I must say that this is the most tyrannical and extremist piece of legislation I have yet read.

This article was not intended to be part of a set. Yet, it follows on directly from my recent essays on “Our Enemy, the UN” [[i]] and the perversion of the precautionary principle [[ii]].

The bill’s history

The bill was introduced by Sian Berry, Green MP for Brighton Pavilion. It had previously been brought up in 2022. It had its first reading on July 1^st, 2025: [[iii]]. Its stated purposes are: “To establish the right to breathe clean air. To require the Secretary of State to achieve and maintain clean air in England. To make provision about environmental targets and minimum standards in relation to clean air. To make provision about the powers, duties and functions of public bodies in England in relation to air pollution. To give the Office for Environmental Protection additional powers and duties related to clean air. To require the Secretary of State to comply with the United Nations Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution. To require the Secretary of State and public authorities to apply specified environmental principles in carrying out their duties under this Act. And for connected purposes.”

Of the 12 presenters of this bill, two are Green MPs, five Labour, two Lib Dem including Roz Savage (proposer of the Climate and Nature bill [[iv]]), one Independent, one SNP and one SDLP. Ten of them are also listed as supporters of Zero Hour [[v]], promoters of the Climate and Nature bill. Of the other two, one made her maiden parliamentary speech on May 1^st, 2019 in the debate that ended with parliament declaring a “climate emergency.” And the other has been a senior advisor to Sadiq Khan, mayor of London.

Ella’s Law

The bill has the popular title of “Ella’s Law,” after Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah, who died in 2013 aged 9. Her mother, suspecting that a cause of death might have been pollution from traffic on the nearby South Circular Road, began to campaign for a review of the causes of death. The suspected pollutants were nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) and particulate matter small enough to enter the lungs (PM_2.5).

In her campaign, she was aided by Professor Stephen Holgate. Holgate was chair of the UK government’s Committee on Medical Effects of Air Pollution (COMEAP) from its inception in 1992 until 2001. He was still active on that committee as late as 2010. He was chair of the 2016 working party that produced the highly alarmist RCP (Royal College of Physicians) report: “Every breath we take: the lifelong impact of air pollution.” And in 2021, when UKRI, “UK Research and Innovation”, instituted a “Clean Air Programme,” he was first among those appointed as “Clean Air Champions.”

Ella’s mother became a Green Party supporter, and later candidate. She is now an official World Health Organization (WHO) advocate for health and air quality. And the coroner, who did the re-examination, decided to fall in line. He changed the cause of Ella’s death to “asthma contributed to by excessive air pollution.” He also observed that “there was no dispute at the inquest that atmospheric air pollution is the cause of many thousand premature deaths in the UK.” Though, to my knowledge, no other UK death certificate has ever mentioned air pollution.

There is a website devoted to Ella’s Law. Its major supporters are listed here: [[vi]]. Sadiq Khan is, unsurprisingly, the figurehead. The RCP is also there, having written supportively to Baroness Jones, who introduced the bill back in 2022. But who signed that letter on behalf of the RCP? No less than Professor Stephen Holgate.

And a Tory peer and former paralympic swimmer enthused: “continuous improvement… year on year, is built into it.” Ignoring that such “continuous improvement” means not only ever-mounting costs to us the people, but also an ever-tightening noose around our necks.

The environmental context

Before I look at what is in the bill, I’ll say something about the history of air pollution in the UK. DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) publish a yearly report on the levels of many different pollutants, including NO₂ and PM_2.5. This shows, among much else, graphs of the changes in emissions and concentrations, often going back more than 50 years. The latest report, for 2024, is here: [[vii]].

This shows that NO₂ concentrations have gone down by a factor of almost 3 since the mid-1990s. UK emissions are also less than a third of what they were in 1990. And “all background locations were within the limit value.” (The EU limit, set before Brexit).

As to PM_2.5, “everywhere in the UK was well within the annual mean limit value.” Concentrations of PM_2.5 have roughly halved since 2011. Emissions have gone down by a factor of more than 3. And the only spike during 2024 was due to Bonfire Night.

Leaf through the document, and you will see similar patterns for many pollutants (except ozone, whose chemistry is strange). A steep drop in emissions and concentrations in the 1990s, as relatively easy reduction measures were rolled out (such as installing scrubbers on coal-fired power stations). Followed by a continuing, but slower, drop since 2000, or for a few of the pollutants a levelling-off of concentrations. Haven’t we done well?

What is in the bill?

The “right” to breathe “clean air”

The bill opens: “Everyone has the right to breathe clean air.” Then goes on to declare that this “right” is to be treated as if it was named in the European Convention on Human Rights.

This raises two sets of questions. First, just how clean is “clean?” And, given the huge reductions in pollution over decades as documented in the DEFRA report, is the air in the UK not already clean enough? It is several orders of magnitude less polluted than it was in the 1890s. Or in 1952, when the “Great Smog of London” took place. Or even in 1990. Where is the evidence that all these reductions have not been sufficient to make the air truly clean?

And second, how can anything be a human right, if it is not possible to identify an obligation or set of obligations which, if everyone kept to them, would guarantee respect for that right? A lot of air pollutants in the UK, for example sulphur dioxide, come mainly from sources beyond human control, like volcanoes. And the biggest particulate matter episode in 2024 was the result of air that had come all the way from Russia. Good luck to anyone who tries to defend such a “human right” against Viking volcanoes! Or even Voivode Vladimir.

The timeframe

The bill, as written, dates from 2022. It therefore sets targets which are unachievable, and in some cases already past. Will anyone in the parliament notice?

NO₂ and PM_2.5

From the start, this bill shows up its promoters’ and supporters’ obsession with tightening the screws on us the people. They seek to force on us their malign culture of arbitrary, collective, ever tightening targets and limits on what we may do. And, as I showed in earlier essays, that culture is driven along by a mad craving for “safety at any cost,” regardless of how much harm is caused to the people they are supposed to represent and serve.

Clause 2 shows up obviously who are the bill’s main targets for demonization: drivers of diesel cars. For earlier assessments, including one by COMEAP as recently as 2022, had concentrated mainly on levels of PM_2.5, with NO₂ considered only as an “other pollutant,” the health benefits of reducing which “should not be overlooked.” Yet this bill seeks to focus on NO₂, which is emitted significantly by diesel engines but far less by petrol engines, as the primary target for draconian reductions. Even though COMEAP, in their last major report on the issue back in 2018, could not agree among themselves on how toxic PM_2.5 and NO₂ are together compared with PM_2.5 alone.

The CCCA

The promoters of the bill want to set up a new organization they call the CCCA (citizens’ commission for clean air). It will be required to review annually both the pollutants covered by the bill, and the limits set on them. It must make use of advice from the WHO, the UK Health Security Agency (HSA), United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), and “scientists” (unspecified). The EU’s European Environment Agency (EEA) is to be involved. And the CCCA must apply the precautionary principle.

These organizations are hardly politically neutral ones. This is, very clearly, an attempt to force even harder on to us the UN and globalist agenda, which I described in my essay on over-precaution as “ever more, and ever tightening, government overreach, without any need for them ever to have to prove anyone guilty of anything.” The CCCA will have the power to add pollutants to the schedules, or to lower limits, at their pleasure.

For greenhouse gases, the CCC (Committee for Climate Change) will be given powers very much comparable to the CCCA for pollutants. And the UN’s IPCC must be used as advisors.

The CCCA will have extensive powers to institute or intervene in legal proceedings. It will have powers to force compliance with the “duties imposed by this Act.” And as to clause 20, which specifies the “environmental principles” it must apply, I suggest you read it yourself (but take a sick-bowl with you).

As to its constitution and workings, it appears that the secretary of state cannot dismiss the chief executive of the CCCA, even if they are “unable, unfit or unwilling to perform their functions.” Furthermore, the CCCA can appoint anyone it pleases to any of its advisory committees. This looks to me like a commission that will quickly go out of control, into tyrannical extremism; just as the CCC has done.

Requirements on organizations and individuals

Clause 5 requires owners of workplaces, of new and refurbished residential developments, and of other buildings used by the public, to report indoor air pollution against WHO guidelines. And it will require UK based organizations of all sizes to report their greenhouse gas pollutants. (Hint: CO₂ isn’t a pollutant! But our enemies think it is.)

It will require daily information about ambient pollutant concentrations to be provided to the public. And if a limit is forecast to be, or is actually, exceeded, “necessary steps must be taken to inform members of the public by means of radio, television, newspapers or the Internet.” Their idea of how to solve a putative pollution problem, so it seems, is to adulterate our airwaves with alarums!

When a threat to current or future public health or to the environment is suspected, clause 6 enables the secretary of state to “restrain any person or persons responsible for causing or contributing to the alleged pollution.” Without any proof, or any due process of law at all!

Clause 6 also says, “regulations must restrict the sale or use of combustion appliances that emit pollutants to the air.” It looks as if these will include domestic gas and solid fuel boilers.

Requirements on other parts of government

Clauses 7 to 15 direct the Environment Agency, the CCC, local authorities, the Office for Environmental Protection, the Civil Aviation Authority, National Highways, Historic England, Natural England and Network Rail to “achieve and maintain clean air,” or similar.

The controlled pollutants and their limits

The schedules 1 to 4 show, it would appear, that someone has spent a lot of time pulling together scare stories about just about every air pollutant in the universe, and trying to work out just how low a limit for each they think they can get away with setting.

I checked NO₂ and PM_2.5, and a couple of others, and in these cases the limits tally with the WHO’s latest (2021) set of guidelines: [[viii]]. But there are a lot more pollutants covered by the bill, than those the WHO issues guidelines, or even good practice statements, for. Some of those are reported on annually by DEFRA: but some don’t even make it there.

For example, what the heck is radon doing in there? Radon is a radioactive noble gas, which as far as I know isn’t produced by any human activities. How, then, can it ever be reasonable to try to regulate it? And there are also “biological pollutants,” dampness and mould, with a limit of zero! How, could any old church, or other building more than 100 or so years old, be completely free from these?

The WHO’s guidelines

By the way, if you skim-read the WHO’s guidelines, you can see how they have been setting out to tighten the screws, again and again. Every so often, they set a new “AQG target” guideline figure, often an order of magnitude below previous targets. And then the previous target shifts and becomes an “interim target,” while earlier interim targets themselves get re-numbered to match.

There is a lot of discussion of “systematic reviews” of earlier scientific literature. But one thing that is signally lacking is analysis of actual mortality data before and after pollution reductions of the past. You would have thought that the WHO would want to show proof positive that their ever-decreasing targets and limits have in the past led to clear reductions in mortality. Yet I see no such thing.

Furthermore, I have severe doubts as to whether the quoted mortality risk factors for some, if not all, of the pollutants actually reflect reality. I do not have space to address that here, but I will look in future to put together a summary of the history of air pollution toxicology for the UK. And the parts played by the WHO, the EU, COMEAP and others in this process.

Costs

I will close with a rather strange statement from clause 22 of the bill. “Nothing in this Act shall impose any charge on the people or on public funds.” This seems to contradict clause 9, “The Secretary of State must provide money to local authorities from central funds sufficient to enable them to carry out their duties under this Act.” This is typical of the attitude of environmentalists to the costs of their wild ideas; they simply don’t care a damn about costs to the people, nor do they bother to do any proper cost-benefit analysis.

To sum up

“Tyrannical and extremist” is how I described the bill in my first paragraph. That is no under-statement. This bill, if implemented, will hand all but absolute power to a commission of petty despot “experts,” to set ever tightening, and ultimately unfeasible, air pollution rules that, like “nett zero,” will hugely reduce our freedoms and our quality of life.

Of course, this is “only” a private member’s bill, so there is a decent chance it will be kicked into the long grass for now, just as the “climate and nature bill” was back in July. But no-one in their right minds should fail to oppose it with everything they have, or to see its proponents and supporters for what they are – enemies of human civilization and of humanity.

[[i]] https://reformpartygodalmingash.uk/our-enemy-the-un-by-neil-lock/

[[ii]] https://reformpartygodalmingash.uk/predatory-precaution-by-neil-lock/

[[iii]] https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-07-01/debates/4A1F4AE9-2DF1-437E-87A3-8EBD1017E5FC/CleanAir(HumanRights)

[[iv]] https://reformpartygodalmingash.uk/the-uk-climate-and-nature-bill-by-neil-lock/

[[v]] https://action.zerohour.uk/mp/

[[vi]] https://ellaslaw.uk/support-for-ellas-law/

[[vii]] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68da4202c487360cc70c9e4f/air_pollution_uk_2024_issue_1.pdf

[[viii]] https://iris.who.int/server/api/core/bitstreams/551b515e-2a32-4e1a-a58c-cdaecd395b19/content