The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, claims that his aggressive anti-car policies will help Londoners breathe and stop them dying. According to his and his officers’ many statements, 4,000 deaths are caused by air pollution in our capital city each year. “I’m not prepared to have the early death or life-limiting illness of another Londoner on my conscience,” he tweets, explaining his crusade.
This is surely an urgent public health emergency – a crisis, as he puts it. “How many more children are we willing to let inhale poison?” But beyond the emotional urgency, what does the science actually say? Is our favoured form of mobility really ‘poisoning’ us?
Claims like Khan’s have always bothered me because I grew up hearing my grandparents’ stories about London’s smog, which is now gone. Its air is cleaner than perhaps at any time in the City’s history – just 2% of the levels of particulate matter are recorded today, compared with its peak in the 1890s. We no longer burn coal to heat our homes or power what remains of our industries – not in the capital at least. Technologies have given us much cleaner-burning engines, and vehicle emissions regulations have required a constant level of improvement from manufacturers.
Much may be at stake. The era of the rise of the motor car is the era of the most radical improvements in environmental and human health and wealth. Is it a coincidence? The majority of households in the country now enjoy – take for granted – a level of independence and mobility that was inconceivable to earlier generations. What if it is not a coincidence? Might Khan’s misplaced urgency be causing us to lose something that has been fundamental to our economic development and consequently our longer, healthier lives?
If it means anything to be a sceptic, it means not taking seemingly unimpeachable injunctions at face value. It means taking apart statements, such as Khan’s and those of countless local authorities that people are killed by air pollution, and that restrictions on the use of private transport such as ULEZ (ultra-low emission zone) and 15-minute cities will improve public health. And it means not being dazzled by either the authority of institutional science or cowed by cheap and shrill moral arguments. Accordingly, Climate Debate U.K. and the Together Declaration (both of which I am involved with) have jointly produced a report on the science behind Khan’s claims.
Khan’s ‘4,000 deaths’ figure comes from an analysis produced by the Environmental Research Group (ERG) at Imperial College London. The researchers indeed found in a report, commissioned by Transport for London and the Greater London Authority, which are both offices of the Mayor, that “the equivalent of between 3,600 to 4,100 deaths (61,800 to 70,200 life years lost) were estimated to be attributable to human-made PM2.5 and NO2“. But notice that this statement is already quite different to Khan’s claims of ‘4,000 deaths’, which are, in the report’s view, equivalent to between 61,800 and 70,200 “life years lost”.
In everyday usage, the word ‘death’ has no ‘equivalent’. A death is a death. A death often marks the most painful chapters of a family’s story, and the final moment of an individual’s life. But in mortality risk statistical analyses, a ‘death’ is an interchangeable term – ‘equivalent to’ so many life years. And so, given this interchangeability of like terms, the loss of 70,200 life years is equivalent to the loss of 69 hours of life per year, for each of the 8.9 million Londoners. Over the course of an 85-year life, that amounts to around 244 days – the 85 year-old may have reached 86, perhaps, had there been no air pollution. We will return to that question…
The ERG’s analysis was not new science. It was based on methodology produced in 2018 by the U.K. Government’s Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP). COMEAP reviewed the existing science to try to produce an estimate of mortality risk associated with air pollution from all causes. And it is an extremely interesting read on the state of science’s understanding. COMEAP were given the task of producing a consensus but failed. Much of the 152-page report is given over to a discussion between the views of majority and minority factions within the committee. From the opening paragraphs, COMEAP’s report categorically states that a debate exists within the science and within the committee itself. I cannot recall ever having read a scientific report which is so far from unequivocal about its findings, and which gave voice to fundamental disagreements.
At the centre of the debate is the issue of causality. Whereas air pollution seems to be somewhat correlated with an increased mortality risk, many socioeconomic factors confound an objective interpretation of this link. The minority of the committee found it too problematic, arguing that, “basing mortality burden calculations on long-term average ambient concentrations of NO2 will, despite listing caveats, mislead the public into believing that exposure to long-term average ambient concentrations of NO2 is causally associated with an increased risk of death”. The majority only partially disagreed, and argued that mortality risk estimates could be useful, “provided that the caveats and uncertainties are communicated clearly”. The disagreement caused a number of the minority to state their disassociation from the report, which went on to produce estimates of mortality risk.
Where is Khan’s clear communication of the “caveats and uncertainties” that ‘the Science’ requires? Khan, and many other advocates of policy that will impose radical changes on society have omitted what ‘the Science’ insists on. And in doing so, have they not, exactly as the COMEAP minority argued, “misled the public”? In our report, in which we ‘follow the Science’, we argue that they have, because there is a very substantial difference between what COMEAP’s method calls a ‘death’ (an interchangeable statistic) and what people understand by the word ‘death’ (the actual end of a person’s life).
To mitigate their embarrassment, the false use of the term ‘death’ is now being explained by pro-ULEZ, anti-car reports as a “statistical construct”. But there remains the problem that 4,000 ‘statistical constructs’ have been used to advance a policy agenda, to ‘scare the pants off’ people – a political tactic that sceptics are both familiar with and resent the use of for precisely that reason: politicians, officials, journalists and campaigners seek not to engage rational minds, but emotions. It is in most people’s disposition to believe in the good faith of scientists and institutional science, but here these seemingly impartial, objective, rational bodies are commissioned by the Mayor to support his playing fast-and-loose with ‘statistical constructs’ – language games – when they ought to be challenging him.
Among the authors of the ERG report are three air pollution researchers, David Dajnak, Sean Beevers, and Heather Walton, whose academic profiles each proudly state their having “worked closely with London policy makers”, on developing ULEZ and other policies. So much for the ERG’s claimed ‘independence’. Whether or not their work is flawed, there is arguably too little distance between this form of academia and politics to allow it to be taken at face value. Not even academics should be free to mark their own homework.
The problem gets worse when we consider City Hall’s self-evaluation of the recent ULEZ expansion, which we also cover in our report. In their estimation, the Mayor’s policies have been an unparalleled success, leading to “four million people breathing cleaner air”, and “46% lower” NO2 concentrations in Central London “than they would have been in inner London without the ULEZ”. But as we explain, there are insufficient data to make such a claim. For the pre-ULEZ era, just three roadside air-pollution monitors were operational, two of which were adjacent to or at the entrance to tunnels, while the other was situated between a busy bus stop and a traffic-light controlled traffic junction. These sparse data cannot possibly have produced a representative sample of Central London’s air, and this problem was compounded by the installation of new monitoring stations placed on much quieter, more residential streets in the post-ULEZ era. Like is not compared with like.
Despite such obvious flaws in the data and method of evaluation, City Hall proclaimed that it “underwent independent peer review” and survived. And the peer-reviewer? He just happened to be another Imperial College air pollution academic, Dr. Gary Fuller. Here is his Twitter profile:
Do we detect a hint of activism about Dr. Gary’s research interests? Might it be a bit of a stretch calling it ‘peer-review’, which is typically an anonymous process involving more than just one activist academic in evaluating the claims made in a work? I will leave readers, who are no doubt familiar with other public health work produced by Imperial College’s academics, to judge for themselves whether or not City Hall got the ‘peer-review’ they were expecting from the impartial, objective, rational and not-at-all-pushing-his-scary-book researcher.
But what of those 244 days that the would-be 86 year-old did not get to enjoy? If we could extend life, on average, by this amount, surely it is right to consider policies that may deliver such a benefit?
In risk analysis, as with politics, comparison and context are everything. Since the middle of the last century, life expectancy in the U.K. has been increasing (until Covid and lockdowns – thanks, Imperial) at a rate of 73 days per year. This, it turns out, is driven much more by wealth – income – than by environmental factors, such as air pollution. Half of the differences in life expectancy at the London borough level can be explained by differences in household income. And this relationship is far stronger than the putative relationship between air pollution exposure and life expectancy. According to data from the Health Foundation, just small increases in post-housing cost income produces remarkable benefits in terms of Healthy Life Expectancy (HLE), especially for those on lower incomes. An increase of just £412 per year was associated with 219 days increased Healthy Life Expectancy.
This very strong correlation between wealth and health completely debunks the green preoccupation with the environment. It turns out that it is Londoners’ most wealthy boroughs that are most exposed to air pollution, but which enjoy the greatest longevity. And so, given the interchangeability of ‘statistical constructs’, we can point out by ‘following the science’ that the same health benefit as eliminating air pollution can be achieved by increasing incomes by £459 per year.
But can’t we do both – have clean air and economic growth to drive improved health and life expectancy? Not by the methods championed by the likes of Khan. Restraint is the environmentalists’ preferred policy intervention. On the green view, there is no problem that cannot be fixed by banning, taxing and fining. Hence, shops and trades that have managed to survive lockdowns, only to have low traffic neighbourhoods (LTN) dumped on them are reporting loss of custom and increased costs.
Roads are the routes by which money is moved around society, from customer to shop, from shop to supplier, from supplier to manufacturer, and so on. Our economy is dependent, not just on the mobility of the cash itself, but those who exchange it for goods and services. A draconian restriction on the use of roads, as fantasised by every earnest road-blocking climate activist and every green blob wonk, means a significant reduction in wealth. And as we have seen, a reduction in wealth is ‘equivalent to’ a reduction in health and longevity.
The Mayor’s office has claimed that our report is an attempt to “mislead the public by seeking to call into question the scientific evidence”. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have shown that it is the Mayor who has departed from COMEAP’s science. He has used emotive language which COMEAP says is not justified. He has abandoned the “caveats and uncertainties” COMEAP requires for political expediency. And we have used COMEAP’s method – using equivalent terms to compare degrees of risk – to demonstrate that Khan’s ideological policy agenda is more toxic and harmful to human health than air pollution.
What COMEAP found, and what the ‘statistical construct’ of ‘death’ demonstrates, is not people being killed by toxic substances, but that, at worst, air pollution slightly impedes the rate at which life expectancy increases. If we could eliminate air pollution, we could perhaps increase the rate of 73 days per year by one or two days. But this doesn’t take any account of the loss of life expectancy from the considerable economic impact of reducing human mobility. We might have hoped academics would undertake a serious, objective and policy-neutral cost-benefit analysis along these lines. But given the dominance of green ideology at universities across the country, and the manifestly policy-oriented nature of academics’ research agendas, such hopes are far-fetched. It falls on sceptics and engaged members of the public to make the facts known to politicians and researchers.
Read the new report from Climate Debate U.K. and the Together Declaration here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
But there’s certainly no need to worry that programmable digital currencies will be used for social control. Just a conspiracy theory, folks.
https://www.gbnews.com/cash if you haven’t signed it already.
If that carries on, £50 notes might be in demand. Organised social groups with cash in hand, no invoices etc won’t be popular with the Treasury.
Of course cash is the solution and the last lifeline to some semblance of freedom.
Which is why we can be sure all sorts of legislation is in the works to limit and ultimately eradicate its use.
It will come disguised as something that no-one can argue against, like the anti-corruption billl or the financial integrity bill or some other Orwellian term.
We are going to have to fight extremely hard to keep out right to use cash.
An enlightened government (ha! ha!) would boost our sagging economy by making all cash transactions non-declarable for tax purposes. A thriving black economy would provide the roots for the overall economy to grow (on the basis that cash eventually finds its way back into the bank, at which point it becomes taxable – but meantime the quantity of released, entrepreneurial energy would be tidal).
Financial institutions destroying more of their business and nobody thinks this is odd? Just woke overzealousness?
Not very likely.
Nudge, nudge, nudge.
Here comes the Central Bank Digital Currency in all it’s gory Chinese-style social credit scoring glory.
Slowly but inexorably we will all become prisoners of a digital panopticon.
Our every thought, word and deed monitored for ‘wrong-think’ by an unelected bureaucracy of Common Purpose graduates.
Orwell would have rejected this plan as being too dystopian, too depressing, too hopeless.
I actively deplore hunting purely from the animal cruelty perspective.
That said, I often wonder why hardly anyone seems to get upset about the huge increase in the number of animals that suffer horrific injury and death in the name of progressing medical research especially now with mRNA/vaccines. Lots of bigpharma even grow their own literally/genetically.speaking.
How many miracle cures have actually arisen from this “essential research” – especially set against the actual harm the animal tested product actually cause (see the criminal fines paid by bigpharma in that regard.
Anyway, back to the article. It’s deplorable that any bank should have this sort of power – because surely only the Government should have this sort of abilty (sarc).
Cash rules and if we lose it, it’s welcome to a dystopian future.
”You took the words right out of my mouth..” 100% concur, well said and bravo, Sforzesca!
I’m not accusing any individual hunt of anything, however some hunts are using trail hunting as a cover for continuing to hunt foxes illegally. In this case they should be treated the same as any other criminal organisation and have their assets frozen or cut off, and I’m just talking about financial assets.
In my experience all hunts use the trail hunt loophole as cover. It’s amazing how many hounds just happen to lose the trail and well, unfortunately, end up hunting a fox instead.
If anyone happens to think the fox doesn’t suffer, they ought to be there at a “kill” in order to see and hear how humanely the dogs tear the fox to bits. Not that I blame the hounds though. Some human beings actually enjoy it…
And another niceity is the blocking of and interfing with badger sets by the brave terriermen lest the fox go to ground. Completely illegal also.
That may be so, but if it is a loophole or actually illegal then that should be put right through the normal channels. Its nothing to do with the banks or their card payment providers
“I actively deplore hunting purely from the animal cruelty perspective.”
Ever seen a pregnant ewe after a fox has attacked it, or a chicken run after a fox has got in?
Psst … don’t tell these guy we’re animal predators with an instinct to hunt, too. He very likely doesn’t want to know that.
We have all sorts of instincts left over from our evolutionary past, e.g. rape and racism (or at least hatred of people who aren’t part of a small social group) have a lot of evolutionary advantages. The vast majority of people have managed to overcome these instincts and society is so much better as a result. Most of us have also overcome the natural instinct to hunt, shame not everyone can.
Hunting with dogs is completely different to controlling foxes humanely e.g. by shooting. Foxes attacking livestock are simply following their instincts and have no concept of morality or right and wrong. Surely a big part of what makes us different from animals is our sense of right and wrong and our ability to overcome our base instincts.
Would sooner subscribe to the Beano than the DT so I can’t read the link to find out who the financial company in question relates to. Does anyone know?
DS and Telegraph both identify the company as being called SumUp. They’re described as a card reader provider, my response would be “Who, never heard of them”.
Looking at their website they seem to be one of the many companies that have set up in recent years using mobile phone technology to connect a simple card reader to the banks by way of an app. The only difference I can see is they might be a bit cheaper than others.
So same as a Zettle (now owned by Toby’s favorite organisation, PayPal).
For hunts, cash is best, surely?
If fortune-telling is also prohibited business, when are we going to hear about Neil Ferguson’s debanking?
Haha.. that made me chuckle.. 🙂
This is significantly different from the Farage case. Sumup are withdrawing their services because they would be supporting an activity they disapprove of and there are plenty of alternatives. This is much closer to the woman who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay marriage because she disapproved of it (and I think that was reasonable even though I have no problem with gay marriage).
Coutts disapproved of Farage. Same thing.
This is significantly different from the Farage case. Sumup are withdrawing their services because they would be supporting an activity they disapprove of
You’re misrepresenting this. Sumup is not a being and cannot disapprove of anything. This is another case of people employed by a publically-traded company abusing their accidental position of power (which is based on handling lots of other people’s money) to harm some other people because these probably engage in activities which are not compatible with the political program of the US democrats. And they’re absuing it to the financial detriment of the business they’re working for.
There are also no workable alternatives to a financial services provider which choses to stop providing this service to someone without advance notice in the middle of a fund-raising event.
You are comparing apples and oranges. individuals, like bakers, have personal feelings and attitudes. A company is not an individual.
Company = The Members In Company = those who own the company stock = shareholders.
A company is not a person except for legal reasons and therefore it or ‘they’ cannot approve of/disprove of anything. Technically all of the shareholders could at a general meeting by passing a resolution to that effect.
Instead we have managers making decisions based on their personal prejudices, rather than what enhances shareholder value, in breach of their fiduciary duty. There is a strong case for shareholders to start suing these idiots.
Hang on though, SumUp isn’t a bank, it’s a financial service. Surely private companies are allowed to deny services to whoever they want? De-banking for political reasons is clearly dangerous and appalling, but is that what this is…?
Sumup is one of a number of payment providers. Just at Natwest if one of a number of banks. If you’re a trader or any kind of organisation and none of the digital payment providers will do business with you, you cannot take card payments and you are screwed.
Hang on though, SumUp isn’t a bank, it’s a financial service. Surely private companies are allowed to deny services to whoever they want?
Let’s use a contrived example to illustrate this: Assume there’s an actual private enterprise (not the case in the real example) and it’s a plumbing service. Some customer arranges for an appointing to have a leaking pipe fixed. The plumber who’s the owner of the business shows up and does half of the job, ie, takes everything apart. Then, he suddenly notices that his customers owns a book by Jane Austen, an author he absolutely deplores. Therefore, he declares “I’ll now deny service to you because I hate Jane Austen!” and leaves on the spot. The next day, a bill for the work he did before chosing to deny service arrives.
Do you think that’s an acceptable way to conduct business? Or that it should be an acceptable way do conduct business?
Are they allowed to deny services based on race, sexual orientation, sex? Companies are regulated in a number of ways. And… before we get into ‘Rights’, the Common Law principle as one may not enjoy his/her Rights at the expense of another’s. Under Common Law, Rights are passive. Nobody has a Right to demand a service, but nobody has a Right to deny it if it deprives them of their right to go about their legitimate activities.
There is also the law of contract. By offering a service on certain terms and conditions which are excepted by the other party, and the transaction takes place, there is a contract. Exclusion clauses in Co tracts have to be ‘reasonable’ or cannot be upheld in Court.
I think there needs to be some legal action in these matters.
Whatever services these companies supply, finance, paint or coffee, previous causes for access restriction was for proven criminal activities and disruptive behaviour, which has now been replaced with not being in the same group of thought. A Stonewall banner published recently says it all. “Acceptance without exception” total submission to their theme is the ultimate aim, you have no right to freedoms of action or thought or to object, only to capitulate. That is to where we are sleep walking.
The most sensible way to deal with this issue is for those Hunts affected to go on the attack. They should issue statements declaring that they will NOT be accepting card payments and they are CASH only.
If banking services are subsequently withdrawn they have the bank bang to rights, the card provider has lost business and as a Brucie Bonus gained much negative publicity and the Hunt can polish its halo.
Win, win chicken dinner as the kids say. Or something like that.
That’s a nice idea. But it’s not really practical until UK businesses are legally required to accept legal tender (including £50 notes, BTW), which they are not. There are even businesses who refuse to accept cash payments in Reading and in London, you’ll have serious trouble finding some which accept it.
And… people want to pay in cash. I don’t.
The last cashless payment I made voluntarily went this way: I was at the counter in Sainsburys Broad Street (Reading) and had just packed all of my stuff into my backpack. I put my card in, entered the PIN and waited for “Approved. Remove Card.” to appear. I removed the card, grabbed by backpack and wanted to leave when the counterstuff person stopped me: “The payment hasn’t gone through! You removed the card to early!” (always blame the customer, part I) I protested that I didn’t but this obviously didn’t help. Then, I retried this a couple of times and the payment was rejected every time. As I knew I had £30 on the account, I then said “Ok, I’ll go to the cash machine to get £30 to pay my stuff” but the cash machine wouldn’t give me any money, either. Headscratching … I then came to conclusion that I must have misremembered my balance. I left the full backpack at the store, ran home (in summer) and checked my bank account — £30 had been debited from it at the time of the original transaction. No wonder it was empty now! I transferred enough money from my savings account to my current account, ran back to store, asked for the manager to come and demanded an explanation of this mystery. Instead, he started ranting loudly about my card being somehow bad (always blame the customer, part II) and that I’d need to pay all my things again (But make sure to use a different card this time!! — always blame the customer, part III). I ignored the ranting moron, put be card in, entered the pin again, waited for … and removed my card and this time, it worked.
Back at home, I contacted the bank about this. The answer I got was the Sainsburies computer had caused my bank account to be debited but then, refused to accept the payment. Hence, it went into a special account where it – unless claimed by the Sainsburys computer again – would remain for two weeks and then, I’d get it back (which I did).
I can perfectly do without adventures of this kind when shopping for groceries and hence, since then, I (again) always pay with cash.
Those people who reject cash payments are taking the rest of us to a digital hell.
I look forward to reading the list of “worst offenders” Nigel Farage is compiling with regard to financial institutions who are playing politics with their customers instead of serving them. I see also a huge commercial opportunity opening up for those financial service providers who actually want to run a business and make profit by providing customers with good services instead of acting as would-be tin-pot dictators trying to shape society through discrimination and persecution. This could be the banking sectors bud-light moment.
Stop Central Bank Digital Currencies
Just a thought about the Farage/Coutts dossier. He exercised his right to access it, and then published its content, also his right. But in so doing, under current and intended legislation, does the content of that dossier, now in the public domain, constitute a hate crime against him?