What Does Brexit Mean for UK Air Quality?

Now that the UK population has voted in favour of a surprise exit from the EU, concerns have been raised that the already damaging levels of air pollution in urban centres (not least in London) might deteriorate further. With no governing body to encourage action, oversee changes and impose fines for non-compliance, standards could slip and targets be relaxed.

In the wake of the controversial referendum, the UK secretary for Energy and Climate Amber Rudd came out and professed the government’s ongoing commitment to environmental issues. Does this include air quality?

What the EU demanded

Several years ago, the EU published its Ambient Air Quality Directive, intended to bring harmful levels of pollutants under control in every member state. More than anything, the directive was aimed at controlling nitrogen dioxide (NO2) which is believed to claim the lives of thousands of Britons every year.

Member states were required to submit plans to bring NO2 concentrations down to acceptable levels initially in 2010, with an extension being given to certain nations for 2015. The UK has missed both of these deadlines and continues to have dangerously high levels of NO2 and other contaminants, which are not expected to be improved before 2020.

The city of London in particular has surpassed acceptable levels for years now, accruing hundreds of thousands of pounds’ worth of fines from the EU and being taken to court by environmental law firm Client Earth several times over.

The good news

Late last month, Rudd followed up her endorsement of environmental issues by publishing the latest carbon budget (its fifth incarnation). In it, the government pledged to reduce carbon emissions by 57% by 2030 from 1990 levels, which is a 17% increase on the targets imposed by the EU and ambitious goals for the UK to meet.

While this does little to address the issue of NO2, there is good news in that area as well. Newly-elected Mayor of London Sadiq Khan has built upon the Ultra Low Emissions Zone (ULEZ) plan brought in by the outgoing Boris Johnson and expanded it significantly, as well as attempting to bring forward the date for its implementation.

By imposing fines on more polluting vehicles across the entire borough of London, it’s clear that Khan prioritises improving air quality and reducing transport related pollution, which can only be good for the capital’s airways.

The bad news

The downside to withdrawal from the EU is that the body would now have no power to enforce the targets set by the government and hold it (and subsequent governments) to account for non-compliance. Therefore, the ruling party would be free in theory to repeal the targets whenever they saw necessary.

Though flexibility is key to solving air pollution abatement challenges, too much flexibility can deter positive action and inhibit progress. The chance of the UK retrogressing without influence from the EU is a very real one and something that environmentalists and campaigners fear may come to fruition.

“We would be concerned that if we were to withdraw from the EU, a lot of momentum around air quality and efforts finally starting to take hold would be lost, and that would have disastrous consequences for public health in the UK,” explained Alan Andrews, the lawyer who has sued the UK government several times for breaching its limits.

“The worry would be, if we were to withdraw, the government would look to immediately amend or repeal existing legislation and choose its own timetable for meeting the limits - or scrap the limits.”