Has the UK Government Broken the Law with Pollution?

The UK government has yet again been taken to court by environmental law group ClientEarth over its reluctance to act on the increasingly important issue of air pollution within the British Isles. This month, the High Court was told that former Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne illegally impeded crucial reforms to air quality policy because they were too expensive.

A problem that can’t be ignored any longer

By the government’s own estimates, poor air quality claims the lives of up to 40,000 Britons on an annual basis. Meanwhile, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has said that the problem is “wreaking havoc on human health” and with lung disease the second biggest killer in the UK, it’s clear that the issue is an urgent one.

While many commentators agree that flexibility is the key to solving air pollution abatement challenges, the Conservative government have repeatedly failed to take action to address the situation, falling afoul of EU limits time and time again. They were initially ordered to bring nitrogen dioxide (NO2) levels to within legal thresholds by 2010 but failed to do so in 37 of 43 regions. As a result, they were taken to court by ClientEarth, fined by the EU and commanded to come up with a better plan.

Published last year, this new plan involves the implementation of six “Clean Air Zones” in cities across the UK in a bid to alleviate the air quality crisis. However, ClientEarth has long maintained that these proposals are “too little, too late”.

Fresh evidence

Now the environmental law group have gone one step further by claiming that Osborne actually turned down proposals submitted by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) because they were seen to be too costly. In essence, this amounts to prioritising finance above human life, an act which ClientEarth claim is illegal.

“What is absolutely clear is that the cost of the measures and the requirement to keep the costs to a minimum was, in the end, the factor that led to six mandatory Clean Air Zones,” argued Nathalie Lieven, prosecuting QC for the law firm. “All the evidence shows that, on the basis of the modelling carried out, six mandatory zones were not going to achieve compliance.”

Meanwhile, the chief executive of the company was also quick to condemn the government’s actions.

“We offered evidence in court today that the previous Chancellor, George Osborne, made decisions about air pollution based on money – to spend as little as possible,” James Thornton explained.

“That’s not allowed under the law – health comes first, and we have 40,000 people a year dying early of air pollution in the UK. Not only that, it costs the UK economy £27.5 billion a year, according to the Government, so a smart Chancellor would rush to clean up the air. The Government is acting unlawfully by refusing to turn this situation around.”