Schemes to reduce air pollution should be designed to avoid penalising those living in more deprived areas, a think-tank has said.
In a new report, liberal conservatism think-tank Bright Blue has argued that the increasing politicisation of clean air measures risks stalling progress in cutting pollution.
In areas with clean air zones (CAZs), charges should be different in inner cities and outer urban areas to reflect the varying availability of public transport, the report argues.
It also says councils should be allowed to pursue ‘reasonable profits’ from the zones if revenue is used to provide more generous scrappage schemes for those in more deprived areas.
The report’s lead author, Will Prescott, said: ‘People will be far more likely to support CAZs if they don’t unduly penalise the least well off.
‘We need sensible adjustments to CAZs that offer an equitable way to improve cleaner air quality in England’s deprived areas.’
The report also says local authorities should be able to ban domestic burning within certain areas on days when air pollution is forecast to be harmful to human health.
It adds that domestic wood-burning stoves should be required to include a health warning to address the poor public awareness of their harmful medical effects, both to people who use them and their neighbours.
Alexander Stafford MP, member of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, said: ‘We must ensure that our transition towards cleaner air is a just transition and that we bring everyone with us as we move towards cleaner air.
‘Policies which ignore the needs of the least well-off are as useless as policies which will not provide adequate air pollution reduction – these objectives must be balanced.’
