Environment

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Climate takeover: meet the first-time voters guest editing the Guardian US

      by

      Climate countdown

      Climate takeover: meet the first-time voters guest editing the Guardian US

      ‘We want to highlight environmental justice during this election season.’
      Composite: Courtesy climate editors

      Seven Generation Z climate activists from across the United States come together to curate a special edition of the Guardian US. Read their section here
      by Guardian guest editors

      Main image:
      ‘We want to highlight environmental justice during this election season.’
      Composite: Courtesy climate editors

      Generation Z didn’t cause the climate crisis, but we’re paying for it. The damage caused by global heating is already doing untold damage to the entire planet, disproportionately hurting BIPOC (Black, Indigenous and people of color). For our generation, the toll isn’t just physical, but mental: solastalgia, the stress caused by environmental changes to one’s home, is on the rise.
      We are seven first-time voters from diverse backgrounds across the United States who have come together to curate a special climate edition of the Guardian. We want to bring attention to the physical and mental burdens that our generation is saddled with due to the negligence of past generations. We want to highlight environmental justice during this election season. And we will be keeping environmental issues in mind when we all vote. – Alice Shinn
      Alex Perry, 18Atlanta, GeorgiaFreshman at Northwestern University
      [embedded content]
      My Chinese Singaporean and African American heritage inspired me to constantly consider the global implications of local actions. I’m double majoring in journalism and international affairs, with a minor in economics. Post-college, I’m interested in writing about international politics with the goal of motivating others to be aware global citizens.
      Why I’ll be thinking about the climate crisis when I vote in NovemberI believe the climate crisis is the link that connects all countries. Setting our differences aside, we collectively exist in a bubble with finite resources, meaning that our actions at home have global implications. When I vote in November, I’ll support a candidate who forwards policies that mitigate climate change, making our home a safer and sustainable place to live.
      Twitter: @WhoIsAlexPerry Instagram: @alex.perr.y
      Cora Dow, 18Sitka, AlaskaFreshman at Bowdoin College
      [embedded content]
      I’m never not thinking about the climate crisis. It’s something that guides the decisions I make, from whether I take reusable silverware with me, to which classes I take in college. I discuss it with friends, advocate for its solutions at work, read about it in my free time. I’m interested in environmental studies and history. In the future, I hope to move back to Sitka and continue advocating for the rainforest I grew up in.
      Why I’ll be thinking about the climate crisis when I vote in NovemberThis November, I want candidates who live this issue as much as so many young people have been forced to. I don’t want the responsibility of fixing the climate crisis after it’s already too late. I don’t want sympathy from older generations, and I don’t want to be told again “I have so much hope for today’s youth.” I just want someone who hasn’t given up yet, who is willing to recognize the problem and take responsibility – and now I finally have a chance to vote.
      Instagram: @ak_c.d
      Jessica Díaz, 21Houston, TexasSenior at Michigan State University
      [embedded content]
      As a descendent of P’urhépecha people, I have seen the strong connections between cultural identity and the environment. I advocate for communities on the frontlines of climate change, such as in Houston, which is in the heart of the petrochemical industry. I’m majoring in fisheries and wildlife, and in the future want to support community initiatives to restore damaged ecosystems and correct environmental injustices.
      Why I’ll be thinking about the climate crisis when I vote in NovemberOur past leaders failed to be proactive when it came to the climate crisis, instead, they loosened environmental restrictions and allowed for BIPOC communities, like my own, to be unequally burdened with toxic air and water. I am voting with the climate crisis as my top issue because we can no longer afford a president and leaders who don’t believe that all people, regardless of their identities, deserve clean air, clean water, good jobs, healthy food, and a livable future.
      Twitter: @buenoss_diazzInstagram: @buenoss_diazz
      Devin Mullins, 19Boone, North CarolinaJunior at Appalachian State University
      [embedded content]
      I credit my passion for climate advocacy to attending a university with a reputation for sustainability. At school, I study political science and sustainable development, while staying actively involved in politics and advocacy. After college,I will be seeking an MPP or JD program that will prepare me to work on economic and environmental public policy that creates a more just and sustainable society for all.
      Why I’ll be thinking about the climate crisis when I vote in NovemberI’ll be thinking about the climate crisis when I vote in November because I have no other choice. Climate change is the most existential threat to a healthy and prosperous future for myself, my peers
      and the family I’d someday like to have. There are leaders in or running for office who are committed to that future, but they need our votes and our voices to be successful. Our future is on the ballot.
      Instagram: @mullins_dt
      Sofia Romero Campbell, 21Denver, ColoradoSenior at Smith College
      [embedded content]
      I’m a senior at Smith College studying government and Latin American studies with a concentration in sustainable food. After graduation, I plan on pursuing a career in environmental policy.
      Why I’ll be thinking about the climate crisis when I vote in NovemberMy generation is hungry for change and when I vote for the first time in the 2020 presidential election I’ll be thinking about the climate crisis because it illustrates the structural inequities within our government. This is a pivotal moment in history and by prioritizing environmental issues at the ballot box we can address a plethora of other pressing social, political, and economic struggles. Our future wellbeing depends on it and I can’t think of a better framework to enact the most meaningful and lasting change.
      Instagram: @goodmojo99
      Alice Shinn, 20Claremont, CaliforniaJunior at Pomona College
      [embedded content]
      I was born in Tokyo and raised in New York City. I am double majoring in english and environmental analysis, and have no idea what I want to do after graduating. But I plan to further pursue my interests in writing and reading creative non-fiction, and making sustainability not just a buzzword but something that is accessible to all.
      Why I’ll be thinking about the climate crisis when I vote in NovemberClimate change is the worst problem facing the world. Not racism and police brutality, the wealth gap or late-stage capitalism (although all exacerbate the effects of climate change). The climate crisis impacts all industries, all lifestyles and has a profound mental impact. Encouragingly, youths have been radicalized after George Floyd’s murder, but now we must ask ourselves: which candidate will respect and comply with climate accords? Who will crack the door open for decades of work by activists and scientists? We must – reluctantly or enthusiastically – vote for the candidate who is willing to even acknowledge the climate crisis.
      Instagram: @aliceshinn
      Allyson Smith, 19Memphis, TennesseeSophomore at Howard University
      [embedded content]
      I am an activist, poet, all-around creative and political science major. I am heavily involved with politics and am a firm believer in youth political participation. I say “no” to the status quo and use my voice as a stepping stone to an equal society that reflects the people’s interest.
      Why I’ll be thinking about the climate crisis when I vote in NovemberI will be thinking about the climate crisis when I vote in November because I look at all the people in my hometown who are in proximity to chemical plants and not heard due to the greed of capitalism. I think about how the sole resources of water worldwide are drying up and people are severely dehydrated due to this. This is an intersectional issue, this is racial justice. I have no other option than to think about the climate crisis because my life and wellbeing are at stake.
      Twitter: @senpaiversesInstagram: @allyn.smith

      Photograph by Sabrina Lucas

      Topics

      Climate countdown

      US politics

      US elections 2020

      news

      Share on Facebook

      Share on Twitter

      Share via Email

      Share on LinkedIn

      Share on Pinterest

      Share on WhatsApp

      Share on Messenger

      Reuse this content More

    • 88 Shares149 Views

      in World Politics

      Taking American Carnage to the Next Level

      by

      It is a recent tradition among occupants of the White House, as they head out of office, to play a few practical jokes on their successors. The Clinton administration jesters, for instance, removed all the Ws from White House keyboards before handing over the keys to George W. Bush’s transition team. The Obama administration left behind books authored by Barack Obama for Trump’s incoming press team.

      Donald Trump has no sense of humor. His “gift” to the next administration is dead serious. With his recent foreign policy moves, the president is trying to change the facts on the ground so that whoever follows in his footsteps will have a more difficult time restoring the previous status quo. Forget about pranks. This is a big middle-finger salute to the foreign policy establishment and the world at large.

      The Next President Needs to Learn From Past Mistakes

      READ MORE

      Of course, Trump is not preparing to leave office, regardless of the results of the November election. But in his policies in the Middle East and East Asia, the president is attempting to change the very rules of the game just in case he’s not around next year to personally make more mischief. The man is not going to win a Nobel Prize for his efforts — despite the recent nominations coming from a pair of right-wing Scandinavians — but he’ll do whatever he can to achieve the next best thing: putting the Trump brand on geopolitics.

      It cost about $5,000 to replace all those W-less typewriters. The bill for all the damage Trump is doing to international affairs in his attempt to make his Israel, Iran and China policies irreversible will be much, much higher.

      Israel Up, Palestine Down

      For several years, the Trump administration promised a grand plan that would resolve the Israel-Palestine stand-off. According to this “deal of the century,” Palestinians would accept some economic development funds, mostly from Gulf states, in exchange for giving up their aspirations for an authentic state.

      The hoops Palestinians would have to jump through to get even such a shrunken and impotent state — effectively giving up Jerusalem, relinquishing the right to join international organizations without Israel’s permission — are such obvious deal-breakers that Jared Kushner and company must have known from the start that their grand plan was not politically viable.

      But finding a workable solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict was not the purpose of the plan. It was all an elaborate shell game. While the administration dangled its proposal in front of world leaders and international media, it was working with Israel to create “new realities.” Trump withdrew the United States from the UN Human Rights Council for its “chronic bias against Israel.” The administration closed the PLO’s office in Washington, DC, and eliminated US funding for the UN agency that supports Palestinian refugees. And in perhaps the most consequent move, Trump broke a global convention by moving the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Until recently, only one country, Guatemala, had followed suit.

      But then came a flurry of diplomatic activity this fall as both the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain extended diplomatic recognition to Israel. The Trump administration also pushed Serbia and Kosovo, as part of a new economic deal, to include clauses about Israel: Serbia will move its embassy to Jerusalem and Kosovo will establish one there after establishing diplomatic relations with Israel.

      Astonishingly, the Trump administration has promoted this diplomatic activity as restraining Israel. In May, Netanyahu announced that he was moving forward with absorbing sections of the West Bank that already featured large Israeli settlements. He subsequently stepped back from that announcement to conclude the new diplomatic deals with the Gulf states. But it was only reculer pour mieux sauter, as the French say — stepping back to better leap forward. Netanyahu had no intention of taking annexation off the table.

      “There is no change to my plan to extend sovereignty, our sovereignty in Judea and Samaria, in full coordination with the United States,” Netanyahu said in mid-August. Some further to the right of Netanyahu — alas, they do exist — want to annex the entire West Bank. But that’s de jure. As writer Peter Beinart points out, Israel has been annexing the West Bank settlement by settlement for some time.

      Where does this leave Palestinians? Up a creek without a state. The Trump administration has used its much-vaunted “deal of the century” to make any future deal well-nigh impossible. In collaboration with Netanyahu, Trump has strangled the two-state solution in favor of a single Israeli state with a permanent Palestinian underclass. The cost to Palestinians: incalculable.

      Permanent War With Iran

      Strengthening Israel was a major part of Trump’s maneuverings in the Middle East. A second goal was to boost arms sales to Gulf countries, which will only accelerate the arms race in the region. The third ambition has been to weaken Iran. Toward that end, Israel, Bahrain and the UAE now form — along with Saudi Arabia — a more unified anti-Iran bloc.

      But the Trump crowd has never been content to contain Iran. It wants nothing less than regime change. From the get-go, the Trump administration nixed the Iran nuclear deal, tightened sanctions against Tehran and put pressure on all other countries not to engage Iran economically. In January, it assassinated a leading Iranian figure, Major General Qassem Soleimani of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. And this summer it tried, unsuccessfully, to trigger “snap-back” sanctions against Iran that would kill the nuclear deal once and for all.

      Even as the Trump administration was celebrating the diplomatic deal between the UAE and Israel, it was going after several UAE firms for brokering deals with Iran. Trump recently castigated the Iranian government for going through with the execution of wrestler Navid Afkari for allegedly killing a security guard during a 2018 demonstration.

      And US intelligence agencies have just leaked a rather outlandish suggestion that Iran has been thinking about assassinating the US ambassador to South Africa. According to Politico, “News of the plot comes as Iran continues to seek ways to retaliate for President Donald Trump’s decision to kill a powerful Iranian general earlier this year, the officials said. If carried out, it could dramatically ratchet up already serious tensions between the U.S. and Iran and create enormous pressure on Trump to strike back — possibly in the middle of a tense election season.”

      Hmm, sounds mighty suspicious. Sure, Iran might be itching for revenge. But why risk war with a president who might just be voted out of office in a couple of months and replaced with someone who favors returning to some level of cooperation? And why would the unnamed US government officials leak the information right now? Is it a way to discourage Iran from making such a move? Or perhaps it’s to provoke one side or the other to take the fight to the next level — and take off the table any future effort to repair the breach between the two countries?

      Cutting Ties With China

      At a press conference earlier this month, Trump laid out his vision of US relations with China. Gone were the confident predictions of beautiful new trade deals with Beijing. After all, Trump had canceled trade negotiations last month, largely because the Phase 1 agreement hasn’t produced the kind of results the president had predicted (in terms of Chinese purchases of US goods). Nor did Trump talk about what a good idea it was for China to build “reeducation camps” for Uighurs in Xinjiang (he reserves such frank conversation for tête-à-têtes with Xi Jinping, according to John Bolton).

      Rather, Trump talked about severing the economic relationship between the two countries. “Under my administration, we will make America into the manufacturing superpower of the world, and we’ll end our reliance on China once and for all,” he said. “Whether it’s decoupling or putting in massive tariffs like I’ve been doing already, we’re going to end our reliance on China because we can’t rely on China.”

      Embed from Getty Images

      As with virtually all things, Trump doesn’t know what he’s talking about. China has been largely unaffected by all of Trump’s threats and posturing. As economist Nicholas Lardy explains, “for all the fireworks over tariffs and investment restrictions, China’s integration into global financial markets continues apace. Indeed, that integration appears on most metrics to have accelerated over the past year. And U.S.-based financial institutions are actively participating in this process, making financial decoupling between the United States and China increasingly unlikely.”

      In fact, decoupling is just another way of saying “self-inflicted wound.” On the non-financial side of the ledger, the United States has already paid a steep price for its trade war with China, which is only a small part of what decoupling would ultimately cost. Before the pandemic hit, the United States was already losing 300,000 jobs and $40 billion in lost exports annually. That’s like a Category 3 hurricane. A full decoupling would tear through the US economy like a Category 6 storm.

      Geopolitical Carnage

      American presidents want to leave behind a geopolitical legacy. Bill Clinton was proud of both the Dayton agreement and the Oslo Accords. George W. Bush touted his response to the September 11 attacks. Barack Obama could point to the Iran nuclear deal and the détente with Cuba. Donald Trump, like the aforementioned twisters, has left destruction in his path. He tore up agreements, initiated trade wars, pulled out of international organizations and escalated America’s air wars.

      But perhaps his most pernicious legacy is his scorched-earth policy. Like armies in retreat that destroy the fields and the livestock to rob their advancing adversaries of food sources, Trump is doing whatever he can to make it impossible for his successor to resolve some of the world’s most intractable problems.

      His diplomatic “achievements” in the Middle East are designed to disempower and further disenfranchise Palestinians. His aggressive policy toward China is designed to disrupt an economic relationship that sustains millions of US farmers and manufacturers. His bellicose approach to Iran is designed not only to destroy the current nuclear accord but make future ones impossible as well.

      If he wins a second term, Trump will bring his scorched-earth doctrine to every corner of the globe. What he is doing to Iran, China and the Palestinians, he will do to the whole planet. The nearly 200,000 pandemic deaths and the wildfires destroying the West Coast are just the beginning. Donald Trump can’t wait to take his brand of American carnage to the next level.

      *[This article was originally published by Foreign Policy in Focus.]

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      'A savagely broken food system': Cory Booker wants radical reform … now

      by

      From a viral pandemic to the movement for racial justice to the worsening climate crisis, Senator Cory Booker says the massive challenges facing the US right now are all tied to a “savagely broken food system”.And last week, his most recent challenge to that system gained new momentum, when a coalition of 300 farm, food, and environmental advocacy organizations sent a letter to Congress urging legislators to pass a bill that would eventually eliminate the country’s largest concentrated animal feeding operations (Cafos).Speaking exclusively to the Guardian, Booker, a New Jersey senator who ran for the democratic presidential nomination earlier this year, says: “Nobody seems to be calling out how multinational, vertically integrated industrial agricultural companies are threatening American wellbeing, and I just think that the more people learn about these practices, the more shocked they are.“I don’t think most Americans realize that the way we raise animals is such a betrayal of the heritage of our grandparents. I don’t think they realize that … these big companies like Smithfield and Cargill and others have our American farmers now living like sharecroppers in constant debt, forced to follow their rules. I’ve watched the suffering in North Carolina of minority communities who live around Cafos and can no longer breathe their air … and I’ve seen workers in the meatpacking plants and how dangerous those plants are.“Everybody is losing in this system – except for the massive corporations that have taken over the American food system.”Booker was elected to the Senate in 2013, after serving as mayor of Newark, New Jersey, from 2006 to 2013. During his time in the Senate he has focused his efforts on progressive issues like criminal justice reform, reducing economic inequality and increasing access to healthcare.More recently, the food system and the way it shapes inequalities in the US has emerged as one of his defining interests. As mayor of Newark, where more than 50% of the city’s residents are people of color, Booker observed a high rate of poverty and food insecurity. “I learned early in my time as mayor, when I was focused on things like criminal justice reform and economic justice, that all of these issues and injustices were intersectional, and you have to deal with them with a holistic view,” he says.“Kids who walk into bodegas can buy a Twinkie product cheaper than they can buy an apple because 90% of our agriculture subsidies go to four major monocrops,” he says. Workers exposed to dangers in meatpacking plants and to poor working conditions and pesticide exposures on farms are also disproportionately people of color, concerns recently amplified by the Black Lives Matter movement.Kids who walk into bodegas can buy a Twinkie product cheaper than they can buy an apple“What’s motivating me is that I think we need to really sound the alarm in America,” he says. “There are so many crises [that relate] to public health, from global warming to economic justice to humane treatment of animals. What should not be surprising is that a senator is taking this on. What should be more surprising is that we as a country have not seen this broken food system, especially after a Covid crisis, which has so exposed the fragility of the American food system. The real question is why isn’t Congress as a whole moving to address this massive threat to public health?” More

    • 138 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden condemns Trump as 'climate arsonist' as wildfires burn – live

      by

      Democratic contender attacks Trump’s climate strategy
      Trump on climate crisis: ‘I don’t think science, knows, actually’
      Biden: Climate change is ‘not a partisan phenomenon’
      Trump to Woodward: ‘Nothing more could have been done’ on Covid
      Nearly all missing people accounted for as at least 35 killed US fires
      Sign up for our First Thing newsletter

      LIVE
      Updated More

    • 213 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump doesn't care if wildfires destroy the west – it didn't vote for him | Robert Reich

      by

      The air outside my window is yellow today. It was orange yesterday. The Air Quality Index is over 200. The Environmental Protection Agency defines this as a “health alert” in which “everyone may experience more serious health effects if they are exposed for 24 hours”. Unfortunately, the index has been over 200 for several days.The west is burning. Wildfires in California, Oregon and Washington are incinerating homes, killing scores of people, sickening many others, causing hundreds of thousands to evacuate, burning entire towns to the ground, consuming millions of acres, and blanketing the western third of the United States with thick, acrid and dangerous smoke.Yet the president has said and done almost nothing. A month ago, Trump wanted to protect lives in Oregon and California from “rioters and looters”. He sent federal forces into the streets of Portland and threatened to send them to Oakland and Los Angeles.Today, Portland is in danger of being burned and Oakland and Los Angeles are under health alerts. Trump will visit California on Monday, but he has said little.One reason: these states voted against him in 2016 and he still bears a grudge.He came close to rejecting California’s request for emergency funding.He told us to stop giving money to people whose houses had burned downMiles Taylor“He told us to stop giving money to people whose houses had burned down because he was so rageful that people in the state of California didn’t support him,” said former Department of Homeland Security chief of staff Miles Taylor.Another explanation for Trump’s silence is that the wildfires are tied to human-caused climate change, which Trump has done everything humanly possible to worsen.Extreme weather disasters are rampaging across America. On Wednesday, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration released its latest State of the Climate report, finding that just in August the US was hit by four billion-dollar calamities. In addition to wildfires, there were two enormous hurricanes and an extraordinary Midwest derecho.These are inconvenient facts for a president who has spent much of his presidency dismantling every major climate and environmental policy he can lay his hands on.Starting with his unilateral decision to pull out of the Paris climate agreement, Trump has been the most anti-environmental president in history.He has called climate change a “hoax”. He has claimed, with no evidence, that windmills cause cancer. He has weakened Obama-era limits on planet-warming carbon dioxide from power plants and from cars and trucks. He has rolled back rules governing clean air, water and toxic chemicals. He has opened more public land to oil and gas drilling.He has targeted California in particular, revoking the state’s authority to set tougher car emission standards than those required by the federal government.In all, the Trump administration has reversed, repealed, or otherwise rolled back nearly 70 environmental rules and regulations. More than 30 rollbacks are still in progress.The core of [Biden’s] economic agenda is a hard-left crusade against American energyDonald TrumpNow, seven weeks before election day, with much of the nation either aflame or suffering other consequences of climate change, Trump unabashedly defends his record and attacks Joe Biden.“The core of [Biden’s] economic agenda is a hard-left crusade against American energy,” Trump harrumphed in a Rose Garden speech last month.Not quite. While Biden has made tackling climate change a centerpiece of his campaign, proposing to invest $2tn in a massive green jobs program to build renewable energy infrastructure, his ideas are not exactly radical. The money would be used for improving energy efficiency, constructing 500,000 electric vehicle charging stations, and increasing renewable energy from wind, solar and other technologies.Biden wants to end the use of fossil fuels to generate electricity by 2035, and to bring America to net zero emissions of greenhouse gases by no later than 2050. His goals may be too modest. If what is now occurring in the west is any indication, 2050 will be too late.Nonetheless, Americans have a clear choice. In a few weeks, when they decide whether Trump deserves another four years, climate change will be on the ballot.The choice shouldn’t be hard to make. Like the coronavirus, the dire consequences of climate change – coupled with Trump’s utter malfeasance – offer unambiguous proof that he couldn’t care less about the public good. More

    • 225 Shares109 Views

      in UK Politics

      Climate crisis: ‘Tough and sad time’ brought by coronavirus is chance to radically change economy, says citizens’ assembly

      by

      The citizens’ assembly on the climate crisis has urged Boris Johnson’s government to use the coronavirus pandemic to fundamentally reshape the economy so its commitment to cut carbon emissions to net zero by 2050 can be met.Publishing its final report on Thursday, the Climate Assembly UK expressed support for homeworking and radical changes in transport policy — saying the “tough and sad time” brought on by lockdown restrictions presented an opportunity for a huge shift.  Despite concerns over the sizeable hit suffered by the aviation industry during 2020, the assembly called on the government to bring in new taxes on flights to cut the long-term rise in air passenger numbers.The panel of more than 100 ordinary citizens — set up by six House of Commons select committees last year to give the public a bigger say — suggested the aviation taxes could “increase as people fly more often and as they fly further”.Their report called for a complete ban on the sale of new petrol, diesel and hybrid cars at some point between 2030 and 2035, asking the government to consider bringing forward the current deadline of 2035.Watch moreThe very highest-polluting vehicles should be phased out even sooner, the assembly said, calling for more grants for electric cars and more government investment in low-carbon buses and trains.A large majority of assembly members — 79 per cent — agreed steps taken by the government to help the economy recover “should be designed to help achieve net zero”.An even larger majority, 93 per cent, agreed government and employers “should take steps to encourage lifestyles to change to be more compatible with reaching net zero”.  One panel member, 56-year-old Sue from Bath, said: “Even in a year like this, with the country and economy still reeling from the coronavirus pandemic, it’s clear that the majority of us feel prioritising net zero policy is not only important but achievable, too.”
      Climate change protests around the worldShow all 25 More

    • 250 Shares169 Views

      in UK Politics

      ‘This is a problem across the whole of the nation’: 60% of population living with air pollution above legal limits

      by

      Almost 60 per cent of people in England are living in areas where levels of toxic air pollution exceeded legal limits last year, analysis of official figures has revealed.Legal limits for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) – a toxic gas that inflames airways in the human respiratory system – were broken in 142 local authorities in 2019, potentially affecting as many as 33 million people in total.  This includes groups particularly vulnerable to the effects of air pollution, including 7 million children and 5.5 million people over 65 years old. The latter group is now at additional risk because of the coronavirus.
      As the government grapples with the economic devastation caused by the pandemic, the prime minister has presented public infrastructure investment as one of the most important components of his post-Covid-19 economic recovery plan.  “Build back better; build back greener; build back faster,” Boris Johnson said at the end of June. However, as well as £2bn allocated for cycling and walking – a figure that has been criticised as being inadequate – the government’s plans include £27bn for roads.  The vast majority of NO2 comes from road travel, according to the UK’s Air Pollution Information System. In total, about 2.2 million tonnes of NO2 is generated in the UK each year. Of this, about half is from motor vehicles, a quarter is from power stations, and the rest is attributable to other industrial and domestic sources.Read morePrevious studies have found that those most affected by poor air quality are disproportionately people living in deprived areas – potentially leading to a disproportionate impact on people from minority ethnic groups, which in turn could be a factor in the higher rates of coronavirus deaths among those from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds.
      Currently, legal limits on air pollution are set by the EU, but Labour, which carried out the analysis, is now calling for the government’s environment bill to include legally binding targets to reduce air pollution to World Health Organisation (WHO) limits.  Luke Pollard, the shadow environment secretary, told The Independent: “It is essential after the Brexit transition period that we have a robust legal framework in place to ensure government action is taken to clean up our dirty air.  “It’s simply unacceptable that nearly 60 per cent of England’s population – including more than half our children and millions of over-65s – suffer illegally high air pollution. We know that sustained filthy air corresponds to a higher Covid death rate.
      “People have a right to breathe good quality, clean air regardless of where they live. Ministers could and should act now to achieve this by putting the World Health Organisation air-quality limits into law.”
      He added: “Public Health England must also urgently review the combined impact of air pollution and Covid on black, Asian and minority ethnic communities who live in some of the worst polluted areas in England.”The figures represent a longstanding failure for successive governments to get to grips with air pollution.  In 2017, 85 per cent of the UK’s designated “air quality zones” exceeded legal pollution limits eight years after they were supposed to meet them.
      The 2019 local authority breaches now highlight serious concerns that despite a fall in emissions in recent years the government has not done enough to comply with EU regulations concerning air quality, with Brexit leaving many of the most vulnerable people at risk.
      Air pollution is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths every year, and the Royal College of Physicians estimates the health impacts of air pollution cost the country over £20bn a year.
      Many of the areas where NO2 has soared over legal limits are in London, including Greenwich, Hackney, Islington, Brent, Hammersmith and Fulham, Haringey, Lambeth and the City of London. The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has also called for WHO limits to be enshrined in law.
      A spokesperson for the mayor said: “Sadiq is doing everything in his power to stop Londoners breathing air so filthy that it damages children’s lungs and causes thousands of premature deaths. The ultra-low emission zone has already cut toxic air by a third and led to reductions in roadside nitrogen dioxide in central London that are five times greater than the national average.
      “We know there is still more to do. Pollution isn’t just a central London problem, which is why Sadiq has consistently demanded that the government match his ambition and improve the environment bill to include legally binding WHO recommended limits to be achieved by 2030, and to give cities the powers they need to eradicate air pollution.”
      Read moreAs well as London, illegal levels of pollution were recorded across the country, from Gateshead in the northeast, to Bournemouth on the south coast, and also in more rural areas including the New Forest and east Hampshire.
      The prevalence of illegal levels of pollution across the country “makes for quite a frightening story”, according to Professor Stephen Holgate, the Royal College of Physicians’ special adviser on air quality.
      He told The Independent that the research “really shines a spotlight on the extent of this problem”.“There’s been a lot of focus on London, but this is a large number of local authorities, and a number of these aren’t in the big cities, but other areas of England,” he said.“It shows that this is a problem across the whole of England and it’s not just a city issue. People living in these places need to know that their local area is affected by pollution.”
      He criticised the current response to the epidemic and said the government is “not really thinking long term”.
      “If we want this virus to disappear or have less of an impact on the community, then what do we need to do to increase the resilience of the community? Reducing air pollution is one of those factors.”
      He added: “It needs to be taken thoroughly seriously – whether it’s impacting the susceptible population or not, it’s something we can do something about.”
      Air pollution in the UK has markedly improved in recent decades – largely thanks to changes in fuels used to heat homes and power industry. But greater understanding of how pollutants affect our bodies has led to more detailed monitoring, while the climate crisis has also revealed the urgency with which we must curtail toxic emissions.
      Dr Suzanne Bartington, clinical research fellow in environmental health at the University of Birmingham, said: “This is 142 local authorities – a very substantial area – and it does reflect a policy failure in terms of implementation of these legal limits.  “We know there have been ongoing exceedances for a number of years. We know this issue is affecting those areas of higher socioeconomic deprivation, with poorer housing and air quality very much a part of that.”
      She said: “It’s not surprising really, but we would like to see a more health-based approach, which isn’t so focused on compliance, but on health outcomes.”
      She also warned against the view that changing the type of fuel vehicles run on would solve the problems posed by air pollution.
      She said: “Electric vehicles are not a panacea because of non-exhaust emissions from brake and tyre wear, which we know contribute to other pollutants.  “We’re very good at building ourselves into new problems with air quality.”
      Rosamund Kissi-Debrah, an advocate for clean air for the World Health Organisation and whose daughter Ella’s death from asthma became the first to be officially linked to illegal levels of air pollution, said she was “stunned” by the figures.
      “A lot of children are living in areas with illegal air pollution and it’s affecting their lungs,” she told The Independent.
      “There are families up and down the country that are being heavily impacted by air pollution, and it shouldn’t be that way. It shows that we as a family were not unique.”
      She called on the government to bring the scrappage of diesel forward, and for further clampdowns on woodburning stoves. “These things can be done immediately,” Ms Kissi-Debrah said.
      “Can you imagine if our water was that filthy? People would be out marching in the streets.”
      A spokesperson for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: “Air pollution has reduced significantly since 2010 – emissions of nitrogen oxides have fallen by 33 per cent and are at their lowest level since records began.  “We are continuing to take urgent action to curb the impact air pollution has on communities across England through the delivery of our £3.8bn plan to clean up transport and tackle NO2 pollution.
      “This includes providing £880m in funding and expert support to local authorities to improve air quality, and introduce clean air zones.” More