Thanks to the combined efforts of medical professionals and environmentalists, public awareness of air pollution has increased significantly, putting pressure on the government to address the issue. Consequently, air pollution has risen considerably on the UK political agenda. Much of the blame is directed at diesel vehicles. Because diesel engines emit fewer greenhouse gases than gasoline engines, previous governments encouraged their sales. According to government data, between 2000 and 2016, the share of newly produced diesel-powered cars rose from 12.9% to 39.1%, while the share of new diesel light commercial vehicles increased from 76.9% to 96.2%. A recent government policy making headlines is a complete ban on traditional petrol and diesel vehicles by 2040 to address violations of the EU's Ambient Air Quality Directive due to excessive nitrogen dioxide levels. The strategy involves requiring local councils to identify solutions to nitrogen dioxide emission hotspots, with draft plans required by March 2018. The UK government will provide £255 million to support the committee in implementing their plan, and will also establish a Clean Air Fund to fund measures such as road redesign, removal of traffic lights and speed bumps, and upgrades to buses. The UK government has been sued three times by the legal organization ClientEarth over air pollution. The organization argues that the government's proposals so far are both insufficient and too slow to address a problem of this scale. The speed of implementation has always been crucial for government policies. EU directives require member states to reduce nitrogen dioxide emissions to legally mandated levels "as soon as possible." ClientEarth's first lawsuit against the government was heard in the Supreme Court in 2015, where all five judges unanimously ruled that the government must "take immediate action" to address the nitrogen dioxide problem. Under the government's proposal, parts of the UK, including London and Birmingham, will not be able to bring nitrogen dioxide emissions below legal limits until after 2030. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs subsequently revised the plan, proposing a Clean Air Zones (CAZs) system to control the entry of polluting vehicles into England's five major cities by charging them. Last year, Earth Clients filed another lawsuit with the Supreme Court, arguing that the proposal lacked strength and that the government prioritized cost-saving over quality. Justice Garnham stated that the Ministry of the Environment must develop a new plan "as soon as possible" to meet EU requirements and take concrete action to make meeting those requirements "not just possible, but very likely." Earth Clients' third lawsuit demanded that the government publicly solicit opinions on its plan before the May elections, instead of postponing it to September as planned. Justice Garnham rejected the Ministry of the Environment's request for a delay, citing air quality as a "significant threat" to public health. Over the past three or four years, numerous legal cases have emerged aimed at pushing national and local governments to take action on air quality. There are many such cases within the EU, some of which have been successful in Germany, where local authorities in Düsseldorf, Munich, and Stuttgart were required to revise their air quality strategies and implement restrictions on diesel vehicles, the most polluting vehicles. In July, the French Administrative Court, the highest judicial authority, ruled after hearing a lawsuit, ordering the French government to develop a plan within nine months to address illegal air pollution in the country. Such legal actions are likely emerging globally. In December 2016, a group of Chinese lawyers filed a lawsuit against the governments of Beijing, Tianjin, and Hebei, accusing them of failing to control air pollution and protect public health, despite research showing a link between air pollution and one-third of deaths in China. Whether the case will go to trial is currently unknown. However, the lawsuit demonstrates that if the government does not take action to address this threat to public health, the public will exert all available pressure on the government. Source: Chinadialogue (September 8, 2017) (Compiled by PIDC)
