UK government not reducing pollution in line with legal limits

With all the concern over atmospheric pollution levels in China a story may have escaped notice. The UK government is facing a case in the UK Supreme Court over its failure to reduce air pollution in line with legal limits (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21691784). The government admitted that limits would not be meet in 15 regions until 2020 (London will not comply until 2025). This comes on top of the government having to issue a severe pollution warning for London this week.

The response of the government has been to say that the laws are unrealistically strict and that the EU didn’t set proper limits on pollution from diesel exhaust in the first place. Why they view these limits are unrealistic is not clear. Do they mean given the current economic situation it is not realistic to expect pollution to be tackled? Do they mean the limits are to be meet in too short a timeframe? Does the comment imply that there is an expected time lag between introducing the limits and compliance – if so why? Does the comment relate to how the government expects such changes in polluting behaviour to be tackled within the particular political and economic context of the UK.

 

DEFRA stated that the government has acted to reduce emissions of nitrogen dioxide through trying to encourage behaviour changes in divers via tax breaks and subsidies for low emission vehicles. Likewise, there has been investment in green bus technologies  (£75million) along with £560m to encourage local sustainable transport. This is the government response to trying to improve the atmospheric levels of PM10s and nitrogen dioxide, key pollutants from road traffic. In other words responsible for implementing and resolving the issue has been delegated downwards to the local level, indeed even as far as down the individual driver. Action is also indirect via tax incentives to which individuals are meant to respond in the manner the government thinks they should.  Rather than direct action or legislation, the government has taken a ‘nudge’ approach to the problem, developing policies and the context or environment that they believe will provide the impetus to encourage change in the direction they want. Reduction in atmospheric pollution is a side-effect, an outcome of these nudges. The question could be asked will these nudges be effective? Likewise, how can you measure the impact of such nudges to assess if they have been effective?

 

The threat of court action also places the complaints over Chinese pollution in a different light. It could be argued that the atmospheric pollution levels in the UK are much lower than in China and so different criteria should be applied to the problems of the UK government. The UK is not dealing with dense smogs that clog lungs and increase death rates (although calculations do suggest that traffic pollution does cause excess deaths in the UK as noted in the above report). The pollution of concern in the UK seems to be focused on road traffic and so a linear pollution source whilst the Chinese are having to deal with point, linear and areal sources as they go through rapid urbanization and economic growth.  Indeed the Chinese are having to cope with multiple sources of differing magnitudes and with both private and official institutions involved. The magnitudes of the pollution maybe of different orders in the UK and China but both are struggling to balance the needs of economic development and the pollution it produces.  So is atmospheric pollution the unavoidable price for economic development?

 

 

 

Future Flood Risk in England: Committee on Climate Change Report

The recently published report ‘Climate change – is the UK preparing for flooding and water scarcity?’ an Adaptation Sub-Committee (ASC) Progress Report of the Committee on Climate Change, could not have asked for better timing really. The ongoing unseasonal rain (and by rain I mean torrential downpours rather than light summer showers) has brought the issue of flooding to the forefront of many people’s minds, not least those inundated with dirty brown flood waters. The headline grabbing pieces of the report are:


• floodplains have been developed faster than anywhere else in England over the past decade; one in five properties in floodplains were in areas of significant flood risk

• the current ‘build and protect’ policy will leave a legacy of rising protection costs; current levels of investment in flood defences will not keep pace with increasing risks with the number of properties at significant risk of flooding double by 2035

• increasing investment in flood defences and property protection measures could halve the number of properties at risk by 2035 (relative to current levels)

The recommendations of the report in relation to flooding (in the executive summary and helpfully laid out in a box on page 17) sound reasonable but they need to also be looked at in the light of the government’s recent modernization of planning policy (National Planning Policy Framework) which highlights the needs to undertake major and sustainable development in the UK in the near future. The ASC report advises that for flooding robust and transparent implementation of planning policy in flood risk areas is required and that local authorities should be consistent and explicitly takes into account long-term risk of flooding when deciding the location of new developments (page 17 of the report). In addition, there should be support for sustained and increased investment in flood defences by both private and public sources as current spending will not keep pace with the increasing risk. Failing increased expenditure, ways to manage the social and economic consequences of increased flood frequency should be identified. Lastly, there should be increased enabling of the uptake of property-level measures to protect against floods and encouragement of the increased use of sustainable drainage systems to manage surface water.

The National Planning Policy Framework highlights the importance of sustainable development particularly of housing and the importance of community involvement. The ASC report even recognises this on page 12 when it states that ‘Development in the floodplain may be rational decision in cases where the wider social and economic benefits outweigh the flood risk, even when accounting for climate change’ but then adds that in a review of 42 recent local development plans there was mixed evidence of transparency from local authorities in terms of locating development on areas other than floodplains and in including the long-term costs of flooding associated with climate change. So no cosnsitent approach to the issue yet.

So how do you decide (and who decides) if development on the floodplain is worth it or not? The decision seems to be located at the local authority level where contradictory messages are being delivered – develop sustainably (whatever that means) and don’t develop there unless you absolutely have to. There is also an assumption that the decision can be rationalised, presumably using cost-benefit analysis. This puts the valuation of property, the environment, business and infrastructure at the centre of any argument. How does this square with the ‘sustainability’ issues raised in the National Planning Policy Framework? Even worse it is not necessarily the current valuation that will be important by the future valuation of both the land and its use as well as the costs of clearing up flood damage. How do you work this out in a consistent and mutually agreed manner for the whole country for every land-use or potential land-use? Even if the local authorities made their valuations explicit would every stakeholder agree? What of localism as well? How much input will communities have into the decision-making process if valuation is the central pillar of decision-making for housing? Can they, the communities, compete in any discussion with the complicated economic modelling available to local authorities?

An interesting aspect of the report is the focus on ‘property-level protection measures’ by which they means things such as door guards and airbrick covers which the report points out require a take-up rate increase of 25-30 times by 2037 to reach all 200,000 to 330,000 properties that could benefit from their use. Although the report discusses these measures in combination with government investment as being a means of reducing flood risk I do wonder if this is more evidence of the ‘moral hazard’ argument coming into the discussion. In economic theory this refers to the tendency to take undue risks when the costs of those risks are not borne by the individual (or entity) taking those risks (a nice discussion of this idea can be found on Wikipedia – (I am not adverse to using this source if it is well done but wouldn’t advice it for any of my students reading this!) Property-level protection measures seem to throw responsible for tackling the risk (and increased risk of flooding) onto the property owner. Although not put into these words, does that mean it is their fault? They brought the house there, so the risks are theirs to bear? They have to implement property-level protection measures or else why should anyone else help them, such as insurers or local authorities? Odd when developers are allowed to develop on floodplains and then sell houses on – do home buyers have choice in where to buy if housing development is concentrated in floodplains or if those are the only locations they can find houses cheap enough (or in the right price range) for them to buy? Where exactly does responsibility for living in a floodplain lie?

Outsourcing Climate Change: UK Carbon Consumption

A recent BBC report (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17743589) highlights how tricky it is to be certain that 'Green' policies are actually doing what people think they are. The report based on the report from a committee of MPs, the Energy and Climate Change Committee, looking at the reduction of carbon consumption (Carbon-Based Emissions Reporting) (please note this is the address for the report but I can't get it to work properly).

Carbon dioxide emissions from the UK have fallen by 19% since 1990 BUT the UK carbon footprint has risen by 20% since 1990. Now ignoring trying to equate the two exactly, the question is why? The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) said: "We account for our emissions according to international rules that are followed by all countries that are signed up to the Kyoto Protocol, and that are the basis for international negotiations on climate change." It believes it is too difficult to calculate consumption-based emissions or to verify the numbers internationally. Likewise, the department views it as difficult to negotiate global treaties on this basis. Why?

The UKs emissions have fallen because we consume products that are produced in other countries. The emissions associated with these products is not counted as part of the UK emissions. Our pollution is outsourced to rapidly expanding economies such as China. So the problem becomes one of economics. Calculating emissions based on consumption would highlight the significance of trade for carbon production. Without trade economic development would stagnate, the impressive economic growth of China could be stopped in its tracks by an international agreement based on consumption of carbon. Likewise, the UK would have to reduce its standard of living, no longer able to import cheap goods. The international economic system is complexly interwoven and changing one aspect of it affects all parts of it. Outsourcing pollution may be a short-term way to achieve national targets whilst criticising the countries that supply your goods for their environmentally unfriendly way. The longer term problem remains. How do you reduce pollution globally when consumption continues to increase globally.