The black cab is one of London’s most famous icons. Along with Piccadilly Circus, Trafalgar Square and the Routemaster bus, it regularly features in stock footage for films set in the capital and retains a nostalgic appeal for many people, particularly visitors to London.

However, figures from Transport for London show a different side to the story. They reveal that, in 2007-8, the 21,000 black cabs in London produced almost the same amount of carbon dioxide (the main greenhouse gas) as the capital’s 46,000 private hire vehicles (PHVs) and even more of the emissions (PM10 and NOx) that are responsible for air pollution. So it is quite clear that black cabs have an adverse environmental impact, both on climate change and air quality, out of proportion to their numbers.

When Ken Livingstone was Mayor of London the annual licensing inspection for cabs was tightened up and in October 2007 an additional mid-year test was introduced. Nearly 40 per cent of cabs failed the test, with excess emissions a major factor. Despite this, Ken’s successor, Boris Johnson, has scrapped the mid-year inspection for black cabs – while retaining them for the less-polluting PHVs.

When I raised the issue of the pollution caused by black cabs at Mayor’s Question Time this month, Boris admitted that emissions of small particulates (PM10) were especially problematic for Londoners suffering from respiratory illnesses and said this issue needed to be “addressed”. But he refused to consider reinstating the twice-yearly checks.

The reason is not hard to find. Some of Boris’ most effective allies during his mayoral campaign were black cab drivers. According to his campaign office, they distributed over seven million receipts with the slogan “Back Boris” to their passengers – a figure equivalent to the entire population of London. In exchange, Boris made a number of promises to the cabbies, including the abolition of the six-monthly test.

It was not as though Ken had treated black cab drivers badly. He gave them exemption from the congestion charge, the right to use central London bus lanes and an increased night-rate tariff. But, unlike Livingstone, Johnson appears happy to sacrifice Londoners’ health and the struggle against climate change for short-term political gain.

Black cabs are a permanent and necessary part of London’s transport network and no one  is proposing to replace them with PHVs. However, as things stand, for the eco-conscious Londoner who needs to use a taxi service, a licensed private hire minicab is the greener option. Black cabs need to clean up their act. The Mayor should take a lead on this crucial issue and do everything he can to reduce emissions – rather than pander to drivers’ convenience in pursuit of electoral advantage.

Published in Tribune, 31 July 2009

During my recent trip to China to attend a conference on air quality in Shanghai it became quite clear to me that, while the first phase of the recession has not yet come to a close in the UK, with possible further economic gloom still ahead, along its east coast China is still booming. That is not surprising given that China’s annual GDP growth rate stands at 6-8 per cent while our economy is undergoing potentially a 4 per cent contraction.

From what I saw during my brief stay there, street life in the evenings in Shanghai seemed very lively, and the confidence in evidence on the street was also expressed by the politicians l met on the trip. They pointed out how we had been forced to bail out our banks when they did not have to, despite years of western complaints about the lack of transparency in China’s banking system. This is a clear sign that the world is moving away from the Washington consensus to a new paradigm of development where state intervention is more acceptable.

But what does China’s boom mean for London? Clearly Shanghai is a serious challenger to our status as a global financial centre and will be even more so after the Shanghai Expo, which will take place between May and October 2010. Some 70 million people are expected to attend this event, which is being promoted around the theme of “Better City and Better Life”.

The sad thing is that the UK is not part of China’s boom nor are we likely to be, a reflection of the global shift in economic power from the West to the East (see Anthony Hilton’s recent article in the Evening Standard). We certainly need to be out there promoting ourselves during the Shanghai Expo at the very least. We also have to be prepared to learn from China, as l did on the environmental front from their use of electronic street signs to inform the public about levels of noise and air pollution. This is something l hope we can duplicate on the streets of London.

Today at the launch of Client Earth outside City Hall, I expressed concern that London’s hosting of the 2012 Olympics may have been undermined by Boris Johnson’s regressive environmental decisions.

The International Olympic Committee’s evaluation of London’s bid (pdf here) expressed concern about London’s “increasing levels of ozone pollution” but said that “legislation and actions now in place, such as the ‘low emission zone’ and ‘congestion charge’, are aimed at correcting that trend and ensuring all air pollutants are within World Health Organisation and EU target levels by 2010”.

Since this evaluation was made, Boris Johnson has been elected Mayor, and London’s measures to tackle its poor air quality and ozone pollution have been rolled back. The Congestion Charge Zone will be halved in size and the third phase of the Low Emission Zone, which was due to prevent the most polluting vehicles from entering Greater London, has been indefinitely suspended.

A recent London Assembly report into the city’s air quality, Every Breath You Take (pdf here), found that it could be responsible for up to 3,500 premature deaths and 12,000 children being hospitalised for respiratory failure. It has been reported that the Government is considering countermanding the Mayor because his actions may have undermined their fight against a possible fine of £300 million for failure to meet EU standards on air quality.

It’s bad enough that over three thousand Londoners have their lives cut short each year because of the state of our air. The last thing we want is for this still to be an issue when the world comes here in three years time – as it was in Beijing and Athens. If the Mayor continues down this road, that sadly could well be the case. At the least, the Mayor should now reverse his short-sighted decision to cancel the next phase of the Low Emission Zone.

Speaking three years before the Olympics come to London, Murad Qureshi, Labour’s environment spokesman on the London Assembly, has expressed concern that the city’s bid may have been undermined by Boris Johnson’s regressive environmental decisions.

The International Olympic Committee’s evaluation of London’s bid expressed concern about London’s "increasing levels of ozone pollution" but said that "legislation and actions now in place, such as the ‘low emission zone’ and ‘congestion charge’, are aimed at correcting that trend and ensuring all air pollutants are within World Health Organisation and EU target levels by 2010".¹

Since this evaluation was made, and Boris Johnson was elected Mayor, London’s measures to tackle its poor air quality and ozone pollution have been rolled back. The Congestion Charge Zone will be halved in size and the third phase of the Low Emission Zone, which was due to prevent the most polluting vehicles from entering Greater London, has been indefinitely suspended.

Murad Qureshi, Labour’s environment spokesman on the London Assembly, said: "It’s bad enough that over 3,000 Londoners die prematurely every year because of the state of our air. The last thing we want is for this still to be an issue when the world comes here in three years time – as we saw in Beijing and Athens. If the Mayor continues along the road down which he has started, this sadly could well be the case. The Mayor should now reverse his short-sighted decision to cancel the next phase of the Low Emission Zone."

A recent London Assembly report into the city’s air quality found that it could be responsible for up to 3,500 premature deaths and 12,000 children being hospitalised for respitory failure.² It has been reported that the Government is considering countermanding the Mayor because his actions may have undermined their fight against an EU fine of £300 million for its poor air quality.³

Ends

Notes

1. The IOC’s evaluation of London’s bid can be found here: http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_946.pdf. The section on London’s air quality is on page 67/68.

2. The London Assembly’s report in the state of London’s air, Every Breath You Take, can be found here: http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/reports/environment/air-quality-report-200904.pdf

3. It was reported in April that the Government was considering over-turning the Mayor’s decision to suspend the third phase of the Low Emission Zone: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/apr/14/boris-johnson-london-air-quality

In response to questions from Labour’s environment spokesperson on the London Assembly, Murad Qureshi, the Mayor admitted this week that emissions of small particulates – especially problematic for Londoners suffering from respiratory illnesses – needed to be "addressed". But the Mayor denied the need to reinstate the twice-yearly inspections of black cabs which he has abolished – and which nearly 40% of cabs were failing, with excess emissions a major factor.

Speaking after the Assembly Plenary meeting at City Hall on Wednesday, which discussed the Mayor’s strategies, Murad said:

"The Mayor cannot deny the fact that the 21,000 black cab vehicles in London cause the same amount of pollution as the city’s 46,000 private hire vehicles. These kinds of particulates are especially harmful, particularly if you have asthma or other respiratory problems, and they need to be reduced.

"An easy way for eco-conscious Londoners to be greener if they need to use a taxi service is therefore to use a private hire minicab instead."

Murad also made the point that the main cause of emissions from black cabs is from brake and tyre wear rather than engines and added:

"The Mayor used the word ‘trivial’ to describe these emissions, but it is not ‘trivial’ if you are the parent of an asthmatic child suffering from London’s poor air quality. The Mayor needs to take a lead on this crucial issue and do everything he can to reduce emissions – rather than pander to drivers’ convenience.

"These vehicles should be regularly monitored, and the decision to abolish twice-yearly checks was irresponsible. Along with the suspension of Phase 3 of the Low Emission Zone, this clearly shows that Boris’s commitment to our environment is lacklustre at best."

Notes

• Murad Qureshi AM is the Labour Group environment spokesperson on the London Assembly and Chair of the Assembly Environment Committee.

• The London Assembly Plenary session to discuss Mayoral Strategies took place on Wednesday 22^nd July 2009 at 11am at City Hall.

• The Mayor’s answers to Murad’s questions about Taxi & Minicab CO2 Emissions can be consulted here:
  http://www.london.gov.uk/mqt/public/question.do?id=26957
  http://www.london.gov.uk/mqt/public/question.do?id=26958
  http://www.london.gov.uk/mqt/public/question.do?id=26959

• The figures for pollution from black cabs and PHVs are taken from TfL’s 2008 Environment Report:
  http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/publications/1478.aspx

On a number of fronts, it has become all too clear what the environment strategy Boris Johnson is offering to Londoners actually consists of: a bit of charm with a lot of hot air, bluster and the hope that no one looks too closely at the details.

At a recent conference on eco-vehicles, London’s Tory Mayor declared that the capital’s car owners had responded enthusiastically to his personal appeal to “go electric”. In reality, many had already committed themselves to the introduction of electric vehicles in response to the congestion charge and the low emission zone, which penalise polluting lorries and vans. Both these initiatives were introduced by Johnson’s Labour predecessor, Ken Livingstone.

Next it was revealed that a report Boris commissioned from consultants Ernst & Young on the potential of London’s low-carbon economy had cost £85,000. This expensive report says nothing new. It is no more than a re-hash of information already in the public domain. It could easily have been produced in-house by the Mayor’s environment team – which he is now proposing to cut by half. Evidently, Boris prefers outsourcing to private companies, irrespective of the additional cost to Londoners.

This was followed by the publication of the Mayor’s Annual Report for 2008-9, in which he confirmed what many had suspected was his motive for suspending the third phase of the low emission zone, despite the disastrous impact of this on Londoners’ health. In his view, it was an “onerous environmental regulation” on small vans and businesses – in other words, on “white van man” in the London suburbs and the core supporters of Boris Johnson.

Then came the results of an investigation by the London Assembly into the Mayor’s environmental spending. This found that less than a third of the total will be spent on tackling climate change and less than 4 per cent on reducing waste. Most of the money will be used to fund initiatives which Boris claims will “make London a greener and more pleasant city”. Unfortunately, the environmental benefits of these initiatives are questionable.

For example, the Mayor’s cycling programme has a budget of £111 million and accounts for half of the Greater London Authority’s total environmental spending. Yet the scheme is likely to have only a minimal effect on car usage and consequently carbon dioxide emissions and air pollution levels.

Boris was in his element at the Green500 awards, where even Chelsea Football Club received recognition for its environment efforts. The Mayor charmed his audience with warm words about “London’s top organisations truly grasping the nettle to become greener”. This easy-going affability is one of Boris’s great skills as a politician. But problems as profound as those concerning the urban and global environment require something more serious. Such “greenstanding” at an awards ceremony is no substitute for an effective programme aimed at combating poor air quality and climate change.

First published in Tribune, 3rd July 2009

Last Sunday, on a glorious evening at Lords, with its new floodlights and its immediate neighbourhood brought alive in manner that is not customary in St John’s Wood, we saw the successful conclusion of the ICC Twenty20 cricket World Cup, with Pakistan beating the Sri Lankans. Half of the tournament had been staged in London, with matches divided between the Oval and Lords, and it was fitting that it should close at the ground where it had opened less than three weeks earlier, with the unexpected victory of Holland over England in a dramatic final over.

That opening match boded well for the events that would unfold over the next few weeks. The tournament featured fielding and catching that was routinely breathtaking; umpires who got most things right; the example of Ireland giving encouragement to amateur cricketers all around the world; and England’s victory in the parallel women’s tournament. Completed in less than 18 days, the competition left the fans wanting more.

Quality was the key, and we saw the return of traditional skills like wicket keeping and spin bowling in all its variations, as teams realised that the biff-bang approach doesn’t always work. And London showed what an excellent sporting venue it is, with fans of every nation embracing and enjoying Twenty20 – rather more so than some of the more conservative MCC members, it must be said.

London is the historic home of cricket, and the “spirit of the game” now enshrined in the official rules by the MCC embodies the Olympic ideal of fair play. So hosting the Olympic Games in 2012 can provide the capital with an ideal opportunity to showcase cricket, allowing it to reach a much wider global audience, while in return increasing the appeal of the Olympics amongst cricketing nations that don’t engage as fully with traditional athletics.

Leading cricketers such as Gilchrist, Waugh, Dravid and others have been promoting the inclusion of Twenty20 cricket as a “full” Olympic sport in the 2020 Olympics, under the catchy slogan “Twenty20 for 2020”. As a prelude to that it would be useful if cricket were part of the Games in London 2012 in some form.

In the past, the host Olympic nation has introduced a “demonstration” sport as part of the Games, with the aim that this should become an official Olympic sport in future years. This changed with the removal of demonstration sports at the Beijing Olympics, so host cities are now showcasing local sports as part of the “Cultural Olympiad”.

During the Beijing Olympics “Wushu”, an exhibition and full contact sport derived from traditional Chinese martial arts, was incorporated into the Cultural Olympiad. So if the Chinese can have Wushu, l can’t see why we shouldn’t have cricket in its Twenty20 version incorporated into the London Olympics, given that it is our summer cultural game.

Cricket has been part of the Games in the past – it was last played at the 1900 Olympics, when Great Britain beat France. So with a successful Twenty20 World Cup concluded last Sunday, isn’t it time to think about having cricket returning to the Olympics for 2012?

First published in West End Extra, 26 June 2009

London Assembly Member, Murad Qureshi, has expressed his shock as the huge cost of Boris Johnson’s latest environmental failure was revealed. New figures reveal that a report by consultants Ernst & Young on the potential of London’s low carbon economy cost Londoners £85,000.

Murad said: "It is appalling to think that Boris has asked private consultants to produce a report that could have been written in-house while his own environment team face the threat of job cuts. It’s just outsourcing for outsourcing’s sake.

"This expensive report says nothing new – it’s merely a re-hash of information already in the public domain and could have been put together as a student project. I’m surprised and disappointed that the Mayor is willing to put this out as a credible policy document."

Specifically, the report:

• Fails to assess the interventions of the London Development Agency (LDA), the Mayor’s economic arm in the GLA group, into the low carbon economy.

• Fails to mention that the LDA have under-spent £12.9 million on important environment projects since Boris took over last year. *

• Gives undue emphasis to the financial sector rather then the real economy in London and thus does not acknowledge that London’s aspiration to be the global centre of carbon trading and appropriate business services will depend on the capital’s ability to limit its environmental footprint.

Murad added: "If we’re going to get this right, we need to be pressing ahead with a whole range of measures like, for example, building energy from waste plants, having a decentralised energy network and making London’s buildings a lot more energy efficient – not to mention developing London’s green manufacturing sector.

"This expensive report fails to acknowledge the internationally renowned work undertaken by the previous administration at City Hall. Ken Livingstone’s administration had a clear action plan. It set up the London Climate Change Agency (LCCA) and was instrumental in setting up the C40. We’ve lost that impetus under Boris.

"Boris says he wants to cut costs and seems to think we don’t need environment experts at City Hall, but shelling out over £85,000 for a single report is hardly good value for money. You could fund a senior policy officer for over a year for that money and get far more than a single report from them."

Notes

1. Murad Qureshi AM is a Londonwide Assembly Member. He is Labour’s spokesperson on the environment and Chair of the Assembly’s Environment Committee. 

2. City Hall has recently revealed that in the current round of job losses the environment team will be reduced from 37 posts to 20 and merged with the transport team.

3. The cost of the Low Carbon report was revealed in a written answer from the Mayor here http://www.london.gov.uk/mqt/public/question.do?id=26058

* Performance and Monitoring Report to LDA Audit, Risk and Performance Committee, 12th March 2009, reports a £12.9 million under-spend on Environmental projects.

Last Thursday I went to the US Embassy as invited guest to listen to Barack Obama’s Cairo address. And I came out mightily impressed by the depth and scope of his speech. Drawing on his own personal experience of Muslim-majority countries, which greatly helped convince his audience, the US President outlined the seven crucial issues that in his view need to be resolved for a new beginning in relations between the West and the Muslim world.

Though l do have two concerns. Firstly that, by defining the debate in religious terms, Obama didn’t include those in both the West and Muslim world who have no faith or do not regard their religious affiliation as the primary focus of their life and identity. Many such people exist and have an important contribution to make to this discourse. And secondly, while he touched on almost everything else, he didn’t address the importance of development aid, which has always been a major tool of foreign policy.

We should all welcome Obama’s comments on the occupation of the West Bank and illegal settlements, as this change in language is in itself very significant. In reality, though, he will be judged by his follow-up actions and not simply by his fine words. He needs to make it clear that aid to Israel will be cut if the construction and expansion of illegal settlements continues, as the Economist recently suggested. Many US citizens will be amazed to hear that the biggest recipient of US aid is affluent Israel and that it has not been going to those in desperate need around the world. Obama also needs close the tax loophole that allows the private funding of illegal settlements by US-based charitable organisations.

Equally, continued US aid to Egypt should be made contingent on moves towards genuine democracy. The Mubarak regime has become much discredited, with its dictatorial nature having been exposed by dissidents, many of whom now live in London. The existing political system does not leave much space if any for those who disagree with Mubarak, and it would in everybody’s interest to democratise Egypt and allow its lively civil society to play a full role in politics. Otherwise, the political vacuum after Mubarak eventually leaves the scene could be filled by an even more repressive regime. Better for Obama to press for democratic reform now rather than leave it till it is too late.

Finally, while l feel much more comfortable with a USA led by Obama, I haven’t forgotten that the key issue for many Londoners with the US Embassy here is that it should pay its outstanding congestion charge bill. That will be something to pursue with the new US ambassador when he arrives. In the meantime, l think it’s time for me to pay a trip to the Al-Azhar, in Cairo.

Having returned from the Champions League final in Rome, l won’t dwell on the football too much, just to say that we didn’t seem to know how to respond after going down 1-0 and we have probably seen the last of Ronaldo sadly. Hence the play on the words of Julius Caesar.

It is clear that all roads lead to Rome, certainly if you look at the way Stadio Olimpico has been managed since the 1960 Rome Olympics. It has both local teams, Roma and Lazio, playing with fanatical support at the stadium on alternative weekends on a pitch around a running track. This is something we are not doing after 2012 with our stadium in London despite all the expenditure on it.

I have also lent my support to a suggestion in a Guardian editorial that the Stadio Olimpico should become the permanent home of the Champions League final, with some provisos. These being that we should not have to show photo ID at the stadium, that a drinking ban on the day is inconsistent with beer firms sponsoring the Champions League, and that the final should be held over a weekend and not mid-week.