Why has air pollution suddenly been picked as such a media focus?

[AnotherEffingOrangeRevel]

Can anyone tell me why there is such a massive focus at the moment on air quality? Why are they choosing now? There's probably an obvious reason I'm not up to date on, but what is the agenda for this (at this precise time)?

BarbarianMum, you are right, it is shameful. A lot of them are bought and paid for. It is a slow process to get good people in charge.

Thats to me why brexit is a no goer, unless as part of it you can raise a petition for referendum on anything, not a maybe gets raised at house of commons.

Pollution is a global issue according to environmentalists. Yet we seem incapable of working out that it we apply environmental protection which costs money yet trade with China where there is no environmental protection to speak of.... we simply export all our jobs to the polluting Chinese and wreck the environment in the process.

Pollution is a global issue according to environmentalists.

I think its an issue to most living things on the planet tbh. I'd agree there are problems with china but that is up to WTO, and also buyers in the UK not being selective as to who they purchase from.

China is slowly waking up to the fact that pollution affects productivity.

We export jobs because this and previous governments will only prop up financial services. There was a windfarm company on the IOW that went under during Nu-Labour - its now actually back up and running again.

It's a current/recent focus in the media (e.g. the 40,000 figure you quote). No one's saying it hasn't been focused on before, or that it's not dangerous. Perhaps it's random (whatever that means), perhaps it's strategic in some way. I was just wondering.
Is it a bit paranoid of you to suggest we're suggesting conspiracies, Voyage ?

Who on earth has suggested complete control? When people start saying the government etc don't have any influence on the media I think they need to return from the land of the Sylvanian Families

Yup, I'd stand by that. Thumbs definitely involved. If that's what you disagree on then yes, we disagree.

EU directive about air quality is due to be met by 20/20, the government has recently completed a big study and passed on findings to local authorities who are now pursuing remedial options in their own areas. See DEFRA website for more information and specifics for your area. Where I live (and many others) the main cause is vehicles and so environmental and transportation colleagues are working collaboratively. My area is transportation so contributing from that perspective.

Most reasonable people would consider laughable the idea that there is not a very close two-way relationship between government and mainstream media, IMHO. Complete control, no. Substantial influence, absofuckinglutely.

Indeed, Voyage. Nothing wrong with a good disagreement

Just seen your post Rshard. That's interesting - thanks.

While I'm here, I should probably add, Voyage that I think it's much more complex than "under the thumb" (lazy rhetoric to some extent, I grant you) implies. As I say, I think it's two-way, and also that certain strong (e.g. financial) interests can strongly influence both government and media in related directions. My point is that they are certainly not independent of each other and that the influence on the media from various sources - including government and broader systems - is substantial.

Rshard,
So we will implement the EU dirctive on time... What about Paris? I have sat in traffic jams in Paris that would make your toes curl. Indeed the whole city is a nightmare of slow moving traffic.

I ask because the principle of the EU is a level playing field. But it can't be level if only one country is implementing the EU directives whilst the rest ignore them.

Is there anyone from within Europe that can clear up the "but what about - France/Germany/Spain etc where they do what they want comments". Have these countries actually ratified them in local law or are they just best practice/guidelines. Is it actually the UK just arbitrarily signing up to these?

Mass non-enforcement make me wonder if we have the wrong end of the stick.

BreakingDad well, I'm in Europe but that doesn't particularly qualify me to comment - however, I do have a professional interest in this area.

European environmental legislation is binding - for example, EU vehicle emissions legislation is applied in all EU countries without exception, and you can't sell vehicles which don't comply with the legislation. (I realise there are issues with what how we define "compliance" in the wake of the VW scandal, but EU legislation will soon include on-road emissions testing to help deal with this).

Locally, some countries have historically offered incentives for manufacturers to reduce emissions beyond what is required by EU legislation - this is true of Germany in particular. Countries may also employ initiatives, such as financial incentives to scrap old vehicles, to encourage consumers to scrap older, polluting vehicles and buy newer, cleaner ones.

Air quality is a difficult thing for governments to influence in the short term, because it depends on factors which may be partly or wholly outside their control, like weather conditions, or which would require significant public investment (eg in public transport) to solve. Many big European cities, especially those which have high traffic densities, large numbers of older diesel vehicles and which experience cold, still periods in winter (which trap particulate and NOx emissions), have serious air quality problems - Paris, for example. The Paris administration has made various proposals for addressing the issue, that go above and beyond what would be required under EU emissions legislation.

VW fixing their emissions tests on huge numbers of cars will have an impact.

Really, it won't make any significant difference (especially as the vehicles will have to be recalled anyway). Don't get me wrong - it's bad. But older diesel cars and, especially, lorries are far, far more polluting.

I think Gordon Brown promoting diesel cars had an influence in the short term, just in the wrong direction.

You're right that diesel emissions are an important issue.

However, the environmental argument about diesel versus gasoline engines is a complex one. Diesel engines are more efficient and produce lower CO2 emissions. However, for good scientific reasons, it is harder to control other emissions from diesel engines and this is why, historically, lower emissions limits were set for diesel than petrol cars, and why lorry emissions went virtually unchecked. That has changed now. Current emissions limits for diesel and gasoline cars are close to identical.

Don't think you can blame the weather either.

Weather plays a huge role in dispersing pollutants. It's not a question of "blaming" weather; it is simply a fact that if you take a one-off measure of, say, ozone levels, one of the main factors influencing that measurement will be the prevailing weather conditions!

There are simply too many cars, and we have an economy that orbits around vehicle ownership and upkeep.

Not going to argue with you there ;)

PS voyage I suspect that we agree on a lot of these issues (I'm more than a bit green round the edges). I agree with a lot of your previous posts, and as far as the media is concerned, the guardian's environmental coverage is actually quite good - not perfect, but it's a very imperfect world.

My intention above was simply to address the issue of EU vs national environmental initiatives, and the complexity of the issue.